Hi girls, just some of thoughts with regards to today’s lecture.

Focus of the design shifts from concerns of physical interaction (passive button pushing) to the potential psychological experiences inherent in the product

I think that’s why it’s important for us to include the pre-set timer thingy for the user to have some control over the technology. It can’t be too automated I would say. Else, there won’t be any concrete ‘personal’ experience with the interface for the user. This is especially important because doing laundry has already become a habitual thing for some people, so they may not readily accept iBamboo. (Replaces their daily routine of doing laundry, they may find it redundant?) If there’s some level of control, they might still be receptive towards it.

The suspension of disbelief is crucial. If the artefacts are too strange they are dismissed, they have to be grounded in how people really do behave. Cannot be too clear or they blend into what we already know.
A slight strangeness is the key.
Too weird and they are instantly dismissed, not strange enough and they’re absorbed into everyday reality.

I think there must be a level of difficulty involved. The feeling or enjoyment through imagined participation in the experience – a vicarious thrill is essential. The two extreme ends of the spectrum should be avoided. If it’s too easy, the thrill will only last for awhile. If it’s too tricky to use, people will easily give up and possible revert back to the old practice of using normal bamboos. Ya, so it’s critical to find a balance.

So, prototype needs to be done soon and from there, we’ll collect user’s evaluations and suggestions on it?

See you girls on Thursday’s meeting, 4pm please!

---