Design Research Society Design Research Society
DRS Digital Library DRS Digital Library
DRS Biennial Conference Series
DRS2012 - Research: Uncertainty Contradiction
Value
Jul 1st, 12:00 AM
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU
Approach to Way<nding Application Approach to Way<nding Application
Chien-Hsiung Chen
National Taiwan University
Richard Branham
The University of Kansus
Wen-Hsina Hsiao
National Taiwan University
Shih-Chieh Chen
National Taiwan University
Yu-Chang Huang
National Taiwan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers
Citation Citation
Chen, C., Branham, R., Hsiao, W., Chen, S., and Huang, Y. (2012) Workshop Process for Design Education
by Using AEIOU Approach to Way<nding Application, in Israsena, P., Tangsantikul, J. and Durling, D. (eds.),
Research: Uncertainty Contradiction Value - DRS International Conference 2012
, 1-4 July, Bangkok,
Thailand. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2012/researchpapers/19
This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital
Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS
Digital Library. For more information, please contact DL@designresearchsociety.org.
Conference Proceedings 249
Shaping a Case in Cultural Product Design for City Marketing:
Product storytelling for the former Tainan State Magistrate
Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G. J. (2005). City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a Transitory
Marketing Trick？Tijdschriftvoor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 506–514.
Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. and Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places. New York: The Free Press.
Lee, S. L. (1996). Urban Conservation Policy and the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage: The Case
of Singapore. Cities, 13(6), 399–409.
Lu, Y. H. (2006). The Survey and Planning on Re-use of Ex-Tainan County Magistrate Residence (Final-
Semester Report). Bureau of Culture of Tainan City Government’s Project. (in Chinese).
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (eds.) (2002). Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination
Proposition. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.
Paddison, R. (1999). Decoding Decentralisation: The Marketing of Urban Local Power? Urban Studies, 36(1),
107–119.
Peck (2005). Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4),
740–770.
Scott, A. J. (2000). The Cultural Economy of Cities. London: Sage.
Vanolo, A. (2008). The Image of the Creative City: Some Reflections on Urban Branding in Turin. Cities, 25,
370–382.
Zhang, L. and Zhao, S. X. (2009). City Branding and the Olympic Effect: A Case Study of Beijing. Cities, 26,
245–254.
Zukin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
DRS 2012 Bangkok
Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand, 1–4 July 2012
Workshop Process for Design Education by
Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding
Application
CHEN Chien-Hsiung
a
, Richard BRANHAM
b
, HSIAO Wen-Hsina,
CHEN Shih-Chieh
a
and HUANG Yu-Chang
a
a
National Taiwan University
b
The University of Kansus
Abstract
The wayfinding application of AEIOU approach design workshop is an operationalism
oriented design methodology in which design college students worked together to find the
real world wayfinding problems and then analyze, represent, test, and finally design a
problem solving product or service. The AEIOU approach is articulated to A (activity), E
(environment), I (individual), O (objects), and U (understanding). It was designed based on
the Situation-Framework-Solution Mode that consisted with Situation-problem (analysis),
Framework-lenses (evaluation), and Solution-prototype (synthesis), the evidence-based
design process. The most important concept to be learned is the attitude of “empathy” and
“reflection-in-action”.
The workshop process was operated based on the following steps: (1) Define situation-
problem; (2) Select framework to analyze; (3) Represent Lynch’s framework; (4) Use
Lynch’s analysis method; (5) Analyze representation; (6) Evaluate the collected and
represented data; (7) Develop representations of the evaluation (seeing & imaging
drawings ); (8) Synthesize the requirements or opportunities into beta solution method; (9)
Prototype imagining drawings; (10) Evaluate the solutions-synthesis against the problem
situation and test; (11) Repeat (iterate) steps 1-10 until the cost-benefit is negative.
The conclusions and feedbacks generated from the workshop were three pedagogical
evaluation contents: (1) The website sharing and information presentation are helpful to
the workshop pedagogical method. (2) Most of the students felt “freedom but serious” in
the overall process control. With the satisfaction feedback, the students revealed high
positive attitude about their final design works and their work performance. (3) The most
impressive part of the workshop process was “prototype testing”. According to the
opinions of students, most of them were first time to make prototype testing with the real
users.
Keywords: design process, design workshop, aeiou approach, wayfinding application
250 Conference Proceedings
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Introduction
The wayfinding application of AEIOU approach design workshop is an operationalism
oriented design methodology in which design college students worked together to find the
real world wayfinding problems and then analyze, represent, test, and finally design a
problem solving product or service. It was designed based on the Situation-Framework-
Solution Model, which consisted of Situation-problem (analysis), Framework-lenses
(evaluation), and Solution-prototype (synthesis), the evidence-based design process. The
workshop was held in summer of 2011 in Taiwan. There were 27 student participants in
the workshop, divided into six groups and worked together for two weeks. According to
Cross (2011) in “Design Thinking”, three key strategic aspects of design thinking appear
to be common: (1) Taking a broad systems approach to the problem; (2) Framing the
problem in a distinctive and sometimes rather personal way; and (3) Designing from ‘first
principles’, the designers appear to explore the problem in a way that stimulates and pre-
structures the emergence of design concepts. In this workshop, the methodological goals
were set for young design students, which concluded the “empathy thinking” with users
and team members, and the “reflection on action” about their user behavior observation
and design solution testing observation.
The AEIOU approach is articulated to A (activity), E (environment), I (individual), O
(objects), and U (understanding). It was an evidence-based design process. The most
important concept to be learned is the attitude of “empathy” and “reflection-in-action”. The
concept of “empathy” is to understand people’s needs by getting out in the “wild” and
observing what they do, and make and listen to what they say. The idea is to collect data
that could potentially identify opportunities and user needs. The idea of “reflection” is to
evaluate by “reflecting” on each decision that is made during the design process (Schon,
1983). The concept offers a designerly way of thinking and a strategy for the design
process. The AEIOU frameworks (see Figure 1) represent not only design experience but
also evidence-based knowledge to support the design process. Representations are
different forms of communication and are used to think and communicate what they are
imagining in their minds.
There are five teaching goals in the workshop. (1) Learn that the user is important and
should be part of the design process; (2) Learn specific knowledge, literature and
language to help students become a better designer; (3) Learn to work in teams, and
learn leadership and communication skills; (4) Learn to apply current, appropriate design
methods; (5) Incorporate research on the real world environment with design thinking.
Figure 1 Situation-Framework-Solution Model
Adopted from Branham (2011)
Conference Proceedings 251
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Introduction
The wayfinding application of AEIOU approach design workshop is an operationalism
oriented design methodology in which design college students worked together to find the
real world wayfinding problems and then analyze, represent, test, and finally design a
problem solving product or service. It was designed based on the Situation-Framework-
Solution Model, which consisted of Situation-problem (analysis), Framework-lenses
(evaluation), and Solution-prototype (synthesis), the evidence-based design process. The
workshop was held in summer of 2011 in Taiwan. There were 27 student participants in
the workshop, divided into six groups and worked together for two weeks. According to
Cross (2011) in “Design Thinking”, three key strategic aspects of design thinking appear
to be common: (1) Taking a broad systems approach to the problem; (2) Framing the
problem in a distinctive and sometimes rather personal way; and (3) Designing from ‘first
principles’, the designers appear to explore the problem in a way that stimulates and pre-
structures the emergence of design concepts. In this workshop, the methodological goals
were set for young design students, which concluded the “empathy thinking” with users
and team members, and the “reflection on action” about their user behavior observation
and design solution testing observation.
The AEIOU approach is articulated to A (activity), E (environment), I (individual), O
(objects), and U (understanding). It was an evidence-based design process. The most
important concept to be learned is the attitude of “empathy” and “reflection-in-action”. The
concept of “empathy” is to understand people’s needs by getting out in the “wild” and
observing what they do, and make and listen to what they say. The idea is to collect data
that could potentially identify opportunities and user needs. The idea of “reflection” is to
evaluate by “reflecting” on each decision that is made during the design process (Schon,
1983). The concept offers a designerly way of thinking and a strategy for the design
process. The AEIOU frameworks (see Figure 1) represent not only design experience but
also evidence-based knowledge to support the design process. Representations are
different forms of communication and are used to think and communicate what they are
imagining in their minds.
There are five teaching goals in the workshop. (1) Learn that the user is important and
should be part of the design process; (2) Learn specific knowledge, literature and
language to help students become a better designer; (3) Learn to work in teams, and
learn leadership and communication skills; (4) Learn to apply current, appropriate design
methods; (5) Incorporate research on the real world environment with design thinking.
Figure 1 Situation-Framework-Solution Model
Adopted from Branham (2011)
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding Application
The A-E-I-O-U Approach
The A-E-I-O-U onion model is based on a situation frame that offers a contextual
systematic view for analyzing and evaluating a human-centered situation or problem (see
Figure 2). It could have also used the wording ‘context-based design’ because the idea of
‘situation-based design’ is based on a series of nested systems beginning with the (1)
individual or group (I), then (2) activities (A) of the individual or group, then the (3) objects
(O) that they interact with in a specific ‘place’ or (4) environment (E) called a behavior
setting at a small scale. These behavior settings are collected together to form an activity
system of a larger scale. All these nested systems are influenced by the largest scale or
system consisting of political, economic, sociocultural and technological systems; and the
(5) understanding (U), in context, the relationships between individuals, activities, objects
and environment where the relationships take place. Figure 2 shows the framework of the
AEIOU relationship. Spradley (1980) had defined the main ideas of the content, see the
Table 1.
Figure 2 A-E-I-O-U Circle
Adopted from Branham (2011)
Table 1 Brief definition of AEIOU
Adopted from Spradley (1980)
Title
Definition
Individual
The goals people trying to accomplish, the activity or
community people involved in and feeling expressed
Activity
Single, set of action people do, and carry out the event over
time
Object
The physical things that are present
Environment
The physical place or places
Understanding
Understanding the relationship from individual to environment
Individual
Individual is the human at the very center of the situational frame. It reinforces the
concept of human-centered design. The individual must be studied in context of other
individuals (work, social, or play group), activities they perform in relation with--others,
objects and their immediate environment. Individuals can be studied in context of three
main topics which concluded five levels: (1) Embodied cognition (brain), which refers to
the embeddedness of the brain in the body (the functional integration of action,
perception, and cognition that flow from it) (Wilson, 2002); (2) Situated cognition (body),
which refers to the embeddedness of the brain-body complex in the environment. Also,
off-loading cognitive work onto the environment (Lave &Wenger, 1991; Suchman, 1987),
252 Conference Proceedings
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
and focused on psychological (mind, body and place, cognitive psychology); (3)
Distributed cognition (world), in certain cases, collectives (or networks of situated brains)
process information co-jointly (Hutchins, 1995), which concluded with social and cultural
context.
Activity
It is based on the assumptions that the ‘activity’ is the basic unit of analysis and artifacts
or tools mediate the relationship between subjects and object (Robertson, 2008).
Robertson (2008) addressed interactions that occur when two activity systems come
together and incorporate the idea of boundary objects, see the Figure 3. Where two (or
more) activity systems come into contact, there may be contradictions and tensions
through which expansive learning is possible.
Figure 3 Third generation activity theory
Adopted from Robertson (2008)
Object
Physical things and artifacts present in the environment that the individual interacts and
manipulates. Properties of an object are the attributes of it that can be experienced by our
senses (e.g., its color, size, weight, smell, taste, and location). Objects manifest
themselves as clusters of their properties occupying the space (Wikipedia, 2011). An
object possesses a material shape which can be distinguished from other shapes and
perceived as having meaning. Related with symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969),
which rested on three simple premises: (1) The basis of the meanings of things human
beings act with; (2) The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction; (3) These meanings are handle in and modified with interpretative
process by the person who dealing with things.
Environment
The environment includes small-scale and medium-scale physical places in context,
which could be interpreted small-scale with “behavior setting” (Barker, 1968), and the
medium-scale with “activity system” (Lang, 1987). Behavior setting explains the
relationship of the individual and the social environment. It consists of the combination of
activity and place, in a specific time frame (Barker, 1968). Baker (1968) describes the
activity as “a standing pattern of behavior that involves interpersonal interaction or the
manipulation of objects and the physical environment as the place.” The behavior-place
relationship is referred to as the synomorphy. The environment consists of a hierarchy of
behavior settings linked together to form activity systems. People's activity systems
reflect their motivations, attitudes, and knowledge about (or images of) the world within
the constraints of their incomes, competencies, and cultural norms (Chapin & Brail, 1969).
Understanding
Understand the relationships from individual to environment. In the operation process of
A-E-I-O-U framework, students must realize what the content in the environment real
Conference Proceedings 253
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
and focused on psychological (mind, body and place, cognitive psychology); (3)
Distributed cognition (world), in certain cases, collectives (or networks of situated brains)
process information co-jointly (Hutchins, 1995), which concluded with social and cultural
context.
Activity
It is based on the assumptions that the ‘activity’ is the basic unit of analysis and artifacts
or tools mediate the relationship between subjects and object (Robertson, 2008).
Robertson (2008) addressed interactions that occur when two activity systems come
together and incorporate the idea of boundary objects, see the Figure 3. Where two (or
more) activity systems come into contact, there may be contradictions and tensions
through which expansive learning is possible.
Figure 3 Third generation activity theory
Adopted from Robertson (2008)
Object
Physical things and artifacts present in the environment that the individual interacts and
manipulates. Properties of an object are the attributes of it that can be experienced by our
senses (e.g., its color, size, weight, smell, taste, and location). Objects manifest
themselves as clusters of their properties occupying the space (Wikipedia, 2011). An
object possesses a material shape which can be distinguished from other shapes and
perceived as having meaning. Related with symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969),
which rested on three simple premises: (1) The basis of the meanings of things human
beings act with; (2) The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction; (3) These meanings are handle in and modified with interpretative
process by the person who dealing with things.
Environment
The environment includes small-scale and medium-scale physical places in context,
which could be interpreted small-scale with “behavior setting” (Barker, 1968), and the
medium-scale with “activity system” (Lang, 1987). Behavior setting explains the
relationship of the individual and the social environment. It consists of the combination of
activity and place, in a specific time frame (Barker, 1968). Baker (1968) describes the
activity as “a standing pattern of behavior that involves interpersonal interaction or the
manipulation of objects and the physical environment as the place.” The behavior-place
relationship is referred to as the synomorphy. The environment consists of a hierarchy of
behavior settings linked together to form activity systems. People's activity systems
reflect their motivations, attitudes, and knowledge about (or images of) the world within
the constraints of their incomes, competencies, and cultural norms (Chapin & Brail, 1969).
Understanding
Understand the relationships from individual to environment. In the operation process of
A-E-I-O-U framework, students must realize what the content in the environment real
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding Application
users will be encountered, and observe the situation in honestly, recoding the detail and
well analyzing with the A-E-I-O-U framework.
Wayfinding Workshop
Wayfinding encompasses the information-gathering and decision-making processes that
people use to orient and navigate through space, or how people get from one location to
another. There are five principles that wayfinding questions can address: What is my
destination? How do I find where I am in the environment? How do I find the route to my
destination? How do I recognize my destination when I arrive there? How do I find my
way back to my starting point?
Lynch (1960) coined the term “wayfinding” to describe his concept of environmental
legibility. He identified the skeletal elements of city form: (1) Paths: Familiar routes
followed such as streets, walkways, subway routes; (2) Edges: there are boundaries
between two phases, linear breaks in continuity. The physical barriers concluded of walls,
fences, rivers, or shorelines; (3) Districts: areas with perceived internal homogeneity such
as midtown, residential areas, industrial areas, suburbs, college campuses etc.; (4)
Nodes: centers of attraction that you can enter. Major intersection or meeting places,
such as New York’s Grand Central Terminal; (5) Landmarks: point of reference such as
building, sign, store, or mountain.
The workshop process was conducted based on the following steps: (1) Define situation-
problem; (2) Select A-E-I-O-U framework to analyze; (3) Represent Lynch’s framework;
(4) Use Lynch’s analysis method; (5) Analyze representation; (6) Evaluate the data
collected and represented; (7) Develop representations of the evaluation (seeing and
imaging drawings ); (8) Synthesize the requirements or opportunities into beta solution
method; (9) Prototype the image drawings; (10) Evaluate the solutions-synthesis against
the problem situation and test; (11) Repeat (iterate) steps 1-10 until the cost-benefit is
negative. The following explanations were integrated into five dimensions to combine the
above-mentioned 11 steps with the workshop destination on campus. Alexander,
Ishikawa, and Silverstein (1977) mentioned the pattern language of towns and buildings,
and “each pattern represents our current best guess as to what arrangement of the
physical environment will work to solve the problem presented.” Alexander et al. (1977)
suggested that the pattern language for your own project you choose, that should be
most helpful to solve the situation problems and connect the different scale patterns in
the environment. With the concept of city image (Lynch, 1960) and pattern language
(Alexander et al., 1977), the A-E-I-O-U framework was created based on an easier way to
access wayfinding projects for young students to understand and analyze the
environment.
Workshop process
Think and Determine
Think and determine a situation on campus that could be improved by providing a better
wayfinding system, for example find a ‘place’ on campus that is hard for the visitors to
find or navigate to and through. Why and how did you choose your situation? Figure 4 is
the primary analysis of the chosen environment of group-3.
254 Conference Proceedings
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Figure 4 Brief define situation of library by group-3
Make a Representation
Make a representation of the situation you selected. Define the ‘unit of analysis’ (scale).
What is the place included in the situation - city, campus, parking lot, building or room?
Determine what type(s) of representations would be the most appropriate - sketches,
plans, photos, and video, etc. Begin by representing the environment; next define the
individuals, activities and objects in the environment in your situation, see the Figure 5
which showed the A-E-I-O-U analysis of school library by group-3.
Figure 5 Represent the relationship in the library by group-3
Think about how to Analyze and Represent
Collect, evaluate and represent the information of the environment in this step. Lynch
(1960) mentioned ‘imageability’ to show the potential of city guide and evaluation. In
Lynch’s concept of city image, there are five elements which had been defined as paths,
edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. These elements are basic concepts and are
connected to each other with interrelation and formed the city image flexible and free. As
the Figure 6 showed, group-2 made their environment situation images from complex to
brief representation with design shifting from their refined images and user responses.
Conference Proceedings 255
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Figure 4 Brief define situation of library by group-3
Make a Representation
Make a representation of the situation you selected. Define the ‘unit of analysis’ (scale).
What is the place included in the situation - city, campus, parking lot, building or room?
Determine what type(s) of representations would be the most appropriate - sketches,
plans, photos, and video, etc. Begin by representing the environment; next define the
individuals, activities and objects in the environment in your situation, see the Figure 5
which showed the A-E-I-O-U analysis of school library by group-3.
Figure 5 Represent the relationship in the library by group-3
Think about how to Analyze and Represent
Collect, evaluate and represent the information of the environment in this step. Lynch
(1960) mentioned ‘imageability’ to show the potential of city guide and evaluation. In
Lynch’s concept of city image, there are five elements which had been defined as paths,
edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. These elements are basic concepts and are
connected to each other with interrelation and formed the city image flexible and free. As
the Figure 6 showed, group-2 made their environment situation images from complex to
brief representation with design shifting from their refined images and user responses.
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding Application
Figure 6 Image and represent process of group-2
Prototype Making and Testing
Make design solutions, prototypes, signs or maps (representations) based on the
evidence gathered in the previous steps. Kosslyn (2006) suggested that good graphic
should allow a designer to “connect with his/her audience”, “direct the reader’s attention
through the display” and “promote understanding and memory.” In Figure 7, young
designers tried to make replaceable interface stimulated for the mobile device and test it
in the Taipei main station. Before they made the final design solution, the prototype
testing could let young designers observe the situation of user operation with suggestions
from Kosslyn (2006). Prototype making is one of the most important parts in the evident-
based design workshop. The goals of prototype making are to learn how to represent
designers’ ideas and how to integrate the members’ design abilities with suitable
communication. Think and formulate a testing plan to test solutions in the real
environment using real users. Carry out the testing quickly, collect and analyze the data,
document, and communicate the results to your class.
Figure 7 Prototype making and testing of group-5
Re-make and Re-think
Re-make and re-think the steps 1 to 4 mentioned above. In other words, collecting and
observing the situation of real users’ response to the solutions design iteratively.
Workshop Outcomes
There are six groups in this workshop. Each group chose their destinations and found the
problems they want to solve. After several times of prototype testing with real users in the
environment, young designers made their final design and set it in the real environment.
The Figure 8 explained that group-1 made their prototype testing and final design testing
in NTU campus. They found some users to follow their design walked on the campus,
256 Conference Proceedings
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
and collected their opinions. The other time, they just stayed there and observed people
on the campus if they were watching their design or not. Another project set in the school
library, and the group-3 designed the product with cloud computing concept to help
people find book they want (see Figure 9). There are different situations with different
environmental concerns, and the students generated their ideas and solutions with their
innovative design abilities.
Figure 8 Prototype and final design testing of group-1
Figure 9 Book searching concept of group-3
Multi-Media Usage
In this workshop, students used different representation tools such as multi-media (Flash
video), social media (Facebook), Android OS, etc for their designs. One of the most
impressive ways is the vote function on Facebook. Young designers made their color
decision by voting on Facebook and collected 204 friends’ opinions to help decide their
signs color (orange) for restaurant destination. In Figure 10, one of the final project
designs was created for the information and operation interface on tablet, the Android OS
system.
Figure 10 Application design on tablet by group-4
Conference Proceedings 257
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
and collected their opinions. The other time, they just stayed there and observed people
on the campus if they were watching their design or not. Another project set in the school
library, and the group-3 designed the product with cloud computing concept to help
people find book they want (see Figure 9). There are different situations with different
environmental concerns, and the students generated their ideas and solutions with their
innovative design abilities.
Figure 8 Prototype and final design testing of group-1
Figure 9 Book searching concept of group-3
Multi-Media Usage
In this workshop, students used different representation tools such as multi-media (Flash
video), social media (Facebook), Android OS, etc for their designs. One of the most
impressive ways is the vote function on Facebook. Young designers made their color
decision by voting on Facebook and collected 204 friends’ opinions to help decide their
signs color (orange) for restaurant destination. In Figure 10, one of the final project
designs was created for the information and operation interface on tablet, the Android OS
system.
Figure 10 Application design on tablet by group-4
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding Application
Feedback from Students
In this workshop, the methodological goals was set for young design students, which
included the “empathy thinking” with users and team members, and the “reflection on
action” (Schon, 1983) pertaining to their user behavior observation and design solution
testing observation.
Empathy
Perspective Differences between Designers and Users
This project of wayfinding in the real environment let young designers focus on the
perspective of users’ point of views. There are problem-solution gaps between young
designers and experienced users. One student had said:
“The designers’ way of finding a problem is different from users, even when I am a junior
student, have been learning how to do design for a while. If there is a variety of user with
different background, I think more gaps can be existed. So I found that more users testing
with different situations will be much helpful for me to find the true and meaningful
problems of the situation or in the environment.”
Reflection on Action
Respect, Integrate and Test
Respect, integrate and test different ideas. Learning how to respect team members’
different ideas, if we could not make a final decision about the best solution, we make
prototypes to show to the users and test, evaluate users’ response regarding potential
solutions.
Observation
Observing the problems that users encountered and the solutions designed. Learning
how to observe users behavior and the problems users encountered. After analyzing the
design ideas generated and observing the solution tested with users, a document will be
created for record.
First time teamwork
First time teamwork, first time learn to work as a team and work together with others.
Around 75% students in the workshop are the first time to participate in a team. The A-E-
I-O-U framework and design process let students work together fast and correctly under
an intense time load of two weeks. How to communicate with each other in the team is
the most important part regarding students’ teamwork. One student said:
“It’s our first time to do the teamwork design project, and compare to our school
programs, it’s really different and interesting. We have lots of ideas to make idea storming
with 4-5 team members, and we found everyone had different thoughts. We kept
communicating and trying to convince group members with our own ideas by explaining
how great and helpful my idea was. We also tried to respect team members’ ideas and
gave positive suggestions. It’s hard but learnable and interesting during the first time to
join a team work.”
258 Conference Proceedings
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Website Blog
There is a website (see Figure11) built for the weekly review purpose and students must
upload the weekly content to the website for sharing with other groups. The website
review was helpful to young students for their work process of the incoming week. One
student said:
“Although I was not familiar with interacting with the blog, but the information on the
website regarding each group works and process let me feel some pressure and
encourage us to do better than the previous week. Because we were asked to post our
team information on the blog, our team members had a chance to integrate our data and
pictures from the previous week, and arrange the information to post. I thought that will
be helpful for us to make our next step of design and data collection.”
Figure 11 Workshop website
Process Control
In the process, the six groups must discuss with teacher more than two times a day, and
performed short presentation 2-3 times per week in the classroom. In the free time, they
can go to anywhere searching for more details and materials about their works. There are
three teaching assistants worked together in this workshop, and kept interaction with
students.
Conclusion
The results generated from the workshop included three pedagogical evaluation contents.
Website Blog for Information Sharing
The researchers had created “website blog” for the six groups to present their weekly
research contents and work process, which included their feedbacks. Students can re-
organized their weekly works with the workshop steps and review other groups’ works on
the blog. According to the students’ feedback, “the website sharing and information
presentation are much helpful” to the workshop pedagogical method.
Well Workshop Process Control
In the process, the six groups must discuss with the instructor more than two times per
day, and had short presentation 2-3 times per week in the classroom. During the free
time, they can go to anywhere looking for more details and materials about their works.
The workshop was held for two weeks, and the design process was well controlled from
Conference Proceedings 259
CHEN Chien-Hsiung, Richard BRANHAM, HSIAO Wen-Hsin,
CHEN Shih-Chieh and HUANG Yu-Chang
Website Blog
There is a website (see Figure11) built for the weekly review purpose and students must
upload the weekly content to the website for sharing with other groups. The website
review was helpful to young students for their work process of the incoming week. One
student said:
“Although I was not familiar with interacting with the blog, but the information on the
website regarding each group works and process let me feel some pressure and
encourage us to do better than the previous week. Because we were asked to post our
team information on the blog, our team members had a chance to integrate our data and
pictures from the previous week, and arrange the information to post. I thought that will
be helpful for us to make our next step of design and data collection.”
Figure 11 Workshop website
Process Control
In the process, the six groups must discuss with teacher more than two times a day, and
performed short presentation 2-3 times per week in the classroom. In the free time, they
can go to anywhere searching for more details and materials about their works. There are
three teaching assistants worked together in this workshop, and kept interaction with
students.
Conclusion
The results generated from the workshop included three pedagogical evaluation contents.
Website Blog for Information Sharing
The researchers had created “website blog” for the six groups to present their weekly
research contents and work process, which included their feedbacks. Students can re-
organized their weekly works with the workshop steps and review other groups’ works on
the blog. According to the students’ feedback, “the website sharing and information
presentation are much helpful” to the workshop pedagogical method.
Well Workshop Process Control
In the process, the six groups must discuss with the instructor more than two times per
day, and had short presentation 2-3 times per week in the classroom. During the free
time, they can go to anywhere looking for more details and materials about their works.
The workshop was held for two weeks, and the design process was well controlled from
Workshop Process for Design Education by Using AEIOU Approach to Wayfinding Application
divergent to convergent process. According to the students’ feedbacks, most of the
students felt “freedom but serious” to the process control. With the satisfaction feedback,
the students gave the high positive attitude about their final design works and their work
performance.
Prototype Making and Testing with Real Users
The most impressive part of the workshop process was “prototype testing”. According to
the students’ opinions, most of them were the first time to make prototype testing with the
real users. In the real world wayfinding situation, students must find the real users to test
their destinations, and convince them to accept the prototype testing. Students had to
make the users testing again and again if they had new design solutions better than the
previous ones.
Acknowledgements
Financial supports of this research study by the National Science Council under the Grant
of NSC100-2410-H-011-033-MY2 (100) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977).A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barker, R. G. (1968).Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human
Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Branham, R. (2011).Design Thinking: Evidence-based Design Process. Workshop handouts in NTUST, 2011.
Chapin, F. S., & Brail, R. K. (1969).Human Activity Systems in the Metropolitan United States. Environment and
Behavior, 1, 107-130.
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Hutchins, E.(1996). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph Design for the Eye and Mind(Hardcover). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design.
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City (Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies Series). Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Robertson, I. (2008). Sustainable e-learning, activity theory and professional development. Proceedings ascilite
Melbourne 2008, 819-826.
Schon, D. A. (1983).The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York , NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wikipedia (10, Oct, 2011).Object (philosophy). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy)
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636.
