JOSH BAXTER

Emerging Practices

Having gone through the process of rather rudimentary evaluating some of the concepts of glass. Removing myself from my phone let me experience part of the conceptual basis behind Glass. Wearing sunglasses allowed me to experience something to that of its aesthetics. I now want to look into ways I can go as described in class, a little bit deeper. Something I haven't really looked into yet is its functionality / User interface and the usability of the technology behind the product. 

Glasses user interface consists of a touchpad that side of the device, a tiny screen above the user's right eye, and a voice control system. While it would be difficult for me to emulate the tiny screen above my right eye. My iPhone does have voice control built in.

I can use these functional aspects of my device to help understand the functional aspects of glass. How I plan to do this is by limiting my phone use to that of the standardised functions the Glass originally hand and attempt to rely solely on my voice control system to dictate its use. While this is slightly flawed in that the system has a different intended use case to glass in that functionally I will still need to use my screen in some cases. This will mean it won't be able to give me the full experience, It will help me understand what it is like as a user to interact with a device in this way. I am also interested to see how using my device in the way glass is intended to be used affects my interactions people around me, and if they find it strange or not.

This will be interesting for me personally as the voice control function (Siri) is something I have never really felt the need to use. I always knew my phone has it but have never found a use case in the way I personally use my device. This is interesting as I often catch my parents using the voice control feature and I know that they struggle with the visual communication side of things. Maybe this comes down to a generational preference or not. It is interesting when you consider the ages of the people producing glass compared to people my age. We have grown up in an era where we have learned to communicate with technology throughout our lives whereas people like my parents have had to adopt technology into their lifestyles.

Key things noted from my experience:

Wouldn't always work in the way I wanted it to work, found this frustrating

Noticeably distracted people around me 

Lack of privacy and what I felt I could ask it to do around other people

No visual element made it hard to dictate what I wanted as 

Not as useful as first thought, often took longer to dictate things I normally do at the press of a button, limited functionality

Stopped me from getting distracted by other things on my phone

Was able to use it only for what I intended to in the first place

To counter my experience I asked my step mother for her stance on her use of the voice control feature she often uses this feature specifically for speech dictation.

TEXT reply:

“The voice control feature allows me to quickly reply to a text while I am on the go. I find it also allows me to more succinctly capture my thoughts on a matter or to dictate a document much more quickly than I could ever type. I used the dictation feature to write this text!”

This experience it i can definitely begin to understand how the nature of the technology would help promote the lifestyle glass initially envisaged. However in terms of its usability it has highlighted a few fundamental flaws in how application of voice control technology in this context.

It basically forces you to put whatever your intending to do out into the open, like I have noted this is difficult in the sense that you have to be socially aware about what you are doing and the others around you, taking away a lot of privacy not just from you but the people around you also. There were also simple things that just are annoying to begin with these words being incorrectly recognised and in tern actions happening that aren't intended.

On the flip side to this It does help you not get distracted from other things on your device, as well as helps you think about what you are doing in a more succinct manner.

When I begin to contextualise this experience within my other previous analysis and other evaluation finding, for me it does highlight just how different the use cases and application of this kind of technology are. It is a fare more direct type of interaction where you need to really think about what you are doing and what you want the get out of using the device.

For me this once again highlights just how much of a systematic change Glass presents as a device. When looking back at its lack of adoption following its release it is really no surprise. 

In terms of what I think we can learn or take away from this case study is these two points provide an avenue of interest to explore further:

Stopped me from getting distracted by other things on my phone

Was able to use it only for what I intended to in the first place

From here I think it would be interesting to see what ways we could potentially emulate these positives into current mobile technology.

...........................................................................................

Note: useful to look at how other people evaluate the product idea or whatever, help in thinking around what you might want to test out. this article helped me in identifying the other areas i was yet to explore:

Emerging Practices

Revisited analysis:

What I came to realise from this week's lesson was that I had looked at the analysis stage from a way to conceptual level. What I did previously was bridging away from analysis and moving towards where I should have been following the evaluation stage. With this said I feel that there is a need for conceptual analysis and thought, but I definitely do need to take a step back and bring a more literal approach to how I approach analysis.

I am going to revisit Google glass and look at it form a less conceptual point of view purely feature based and what is presented in the video. From this I am going to formulate a plan of evaluation, and so that I don't undermine the critical thinking I have previously done I am then going to compare and consider my findings against my previous conclusions.

Why Google Glass? | Sergey Brin | TED 2013

Making note of what was stated in the last class to not believe everything we see. In looking back and analysing what is in the video there is this over exaggerated truth to the examples of which contexts the product would be used in. As you can see from these video outtakes a sort each presented scenario is an extreme use case and idealised to what our lives actually look like day in and day out. This leads me to question the validity of whether or not the designers of glass had really thought through the devices application in a normal context. 

This is of particular interest when we consider the design and its form factor. It is very intrusive in its own entirety. While it is stated that t has been specifically designed to not intrude your line of site. What about those around you, while its intention is to bring you more into the now. How would this then affect your interactions with other people. 

Then when you consider the proposed use cases, whereby you have to verbalise a search term or command. This is a very extreme systematic change to that of the mobile device.

In summary after looking back at the device in terms of its form and function, the idyllic representation of how it was marketed. It raises more questions than answers as to whether or not the device could actually deliver the vision it set out to achieve.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation:

As philosopher Maurice Marleau-Ponty’s theories suggest in order to fully understand something we have to have in part experienced it as well as rationalised it, a theory named Empiricism. The idea that things cannot be trusted unless we can experience them in a sensory manor. This becomes the basis as to why the evaluation stage is so important following the analysis stage as we can not fully understand the notion of something unless we can experience it for ourselves. From my analysis and evaluation I will then be able to validate and extend on the questions my analysis brought about previously.

As a means of evaluation I have decided to focus on systematic change google glass proposes in two parts. There are two parts of this proposed change I want to explore. One being the principle of used to the idea of a different system, the other its form factor and practical application. The following statement being a basis for this investigation.

“And lastly I've realized, in experimenting with this device, that I also kind of have a nervous tic. The cell phone is -- yeah, you have to look down on it and all that, but it's also kind of a nervous habit. Like if I smoked, I'd probably just smoke instead. I would just light up a cigarette. It would look cooler. You know, I'd be like -- But in this case, you know, I whip this out and I sit there and look as if I have something very important to do or attend to. But it really opened my eyes to how much of my life I spent just secluding away, be it email or social posts or whatnot, even though it wasn't really -- there's nothing really that important or that pressing. And with this, I know I will get certain messages if I really need them, but I don't have to be checking them all the time.”

Plan of evaluation:

Remove myself from my phone for the afternoon to access reliance on my device

Wear glasses for an afternoon would I wear something with this form factor?

For an afternoon I decided to leave the house without my phone to make sure I couldn't access it. I definitely was able to notice a sort of actions feeling around not having it in my presence. While taking the bus I had nothing to look at this then sent me looking aimlessly around the bus. When interacting with others I would notice myself subconsciously reaching into my pocket to find nothing there and would also sense vibrations as if my phone had received a notification but of course there was nothing there. Then when it came to technical things I rely on for instance my bank. I went to buy lunch only to find my card declined as I couldn't transfer money I was left guessing how much money I had in my account. 

As a whole this exercise made me realise that what Sergey had said about his nervous tick I can safely say is the same for me. I have always kind of been aware of it but this exercise definitely made me realise to what extent.

The second aspect of glass I chose to evaluate was its form factor. The closest thing I own to anything that resembles glass is an old pair of sunglasses. I for these for a few hours. Personally as I don't wear glasses ever i found this a bit of a challenge. Even with sunglasses I have a tendency to take them off and on constantly as I don't enjoy an obstructed line of sight (mind you glass doesn't obstruct your site). Even so having something on you head is annoying as glass still requires you to be able to see things in front of you i could see myself not wearing them constantly. This would in a way go against how the video shows their intended use in that you would be able to capture moments you wouldn't otherwise. While if I made an active effort to wear such things I would eventually get used to them, I personally could not see it working for me. 

Having conducted these two exercises I do question I would in fact enjoy using glass day to day. It would involve a massive move in terms of the way it works as a system and personal device. What glass proposes is very much about putting you more in the moment. But what I found with the first exercise was that my phone is very much an escape point. It being separate from my body creates a point you can turn to when found in a social setting. While glass is trying to stop exactly this, in essence it would be like doing a full 180 from the system we are used to. I don't think that being able to socially isolate yourself is a healthy behaviour to promote at all, but I do think it is a lot to ask people to change their behaviour instantaneously. Changing the devices form and function in turn changes the system entirely. 

Going back to my initial analysis:

The text More Work for Mother used the example of Making bread. Near to know one today would know how to make bread without the use of a range of tools. In other works we have become reliant on technology to a point so much that we no longer need to have that kind of knowledge is it is no longer a necessity. While of course we can learn to do so it isn't something we know. It would be learning a new work process. Same would be said for Glass proposes a change in system and in term requires us to learn how to use it. 

I think this would be difficult change in its initial presented use cases. With this said I can also understand how useful this technology could be. I think that's what we are seeing with glass and the enterprise edition. How it is presented in this context seems far more appropriate in terms of the work process it hopes to improve, rather than a day to day personal device. 

Bringing it back to the initial context and the questions I drew with my previous analysis. This evaluation process has reinforced the initial questions my analysis presented. I now know that I went a bit overboard in terms of my analysis, in that the conclusions I drew then would more so come out of the evaluation process.

Is the way we currently use mobile/personal devices downgrading our lifestyles?

In terms of day to day personal devices are we ready for such an extreme systematic change? 

Is there a need for some sort of middle ground or transitional technology to get people used such a systematic change? 

Is there really a need for the system we know to be changed in its entirety?

Could we take the vision of Google Glass and apply it current technology? 

Emerging Practices

From reading the two given articles, I came to find that while they are quite different in nature, there are many parallels that can be drawn between the key ideas and themes within them. The first article I read was More Work for Mother (Cowan, R. S. 1983), where housework and its tools are used to describe the profound effect industrialisation of technology has had on society.

While we often think of our homes as a place of refuge away far from anything we would described to be industrialised. Our reliance on technology and the various tools we used day to day makes us very much entangled in the term Industrialisation. As the text describes:

“kitchens are as much a locus for industrialised work as factories and coal mines are, and washing machines and microwave ovens are as much a product of industrialisation as are automobiles and pocket calculators.”

The example is used that very few of us would be able to make our own bread from scratch, with success probably not. We have become reliant on a series of technological systems/tools to successfully complete the common task. With this said these tools limit our work. Tools are generally only good for one thing, we may be able to use them in different ways than ultimately intended however their purpose will ultimately always remain the same. In turn they also constrain the ways in which people behave. The writer uses a really good example of getting new cabinets in their family home and the effect this had on the family task of setting the table. The new Cabinets that house their plates was up much higher than their old cabinets. Their kids used to be able to set the table by themselves as they were able to freely reach the cabinet. However not they are much higher and the kids can no longer reach the cabinets themselves the assistance of an adult is required hence changing the entire dynamic of that task. Unless of course the addition of a new tool is used a stool. This is an interesting example of the profound effect a technological system can have on our work process and or the way we behave.

I find this particularly interesting when we then compare this example to the ones given in the second article Do artefacts have politics? (Winner, L. 1986). This text as the name suggest being about how technological artefacts carry political values along with them some intended while some unintended also in the context of industrialisation.

The example is used of a tomato harvesting machine that was developed by the University of California. A machine was developed that was able to harvest tomatoes on a single pass through a row. This of course replaced the initial system of hand picking. However while the machine was developed with the best intentions this had widespread social implications for California's rural sector, cutting jobs for thousands of workers. This is a prime example of the effect industrialisation can have on our work process. Just like the task of setting the table tools can have a profound effect on us that can differ from the tools intended purpose.

What these two articles highlight is that the social and political and historical values of a technology can not be ignored when thinking about and producing new technologies. All implications must be taken into consideration.

A given example of this was Facebook and the role it played in Brexit through targeted ad campaigns that manipulated users political views and ideologies. Facebook has always claimed that it uses a range of technologies to enhance users ad experiences. However this was an instance whereby the tool was used in a way that was unintended to create political bias. Of Course Facebook denies any such claims but it raises more questions than answers about the level of thought that has gone into new technologies and systems we find ourselves surrounded by today.

Facebooks role in Brexit -  and the threat to democracy | Carole Cadwalladr | TED 2019

We can help identify the questions we should be asking Amara's Law: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run”. Take Google glass as a case study. A product that calls for a new way of seeing our relationship with our mobile computers, not hunched over a screen but meeting the world heads-up.

Why Google Glass? | Sergey Brin | TED 2013

Prior to the time of its launch there was a lot of hype generated about Google glass and it potential future applications. As one of the founders of Google Sergey Brin said this will change the way we interact with the world around us. No longer will we need to stare into featureless screens that draw us away from what is happening around us.

An interesting comment was made by Sergey when he articulated his experience of the product. He talked about how it made him realise how reliant he was on his mobile device. It had become a sort of safety net unto which he could escape from the present world. He talked about it being a significant change and an eye opener as to just how much his mobile device had been taking away from his life.

In part due to the fact that the mobile device has become a system of its own. Up until google glass and other emerging technologies such as the Apple watch. The technological system we call a phone has very much remained unchallenged. These emerging technologies challenge the conventions of what a mobile device can be and should be. Thinking back to Amara’s law is it possible that we are simply not ready for such a systematic change just yet?

The article Written by Google under a year before the Launch of Glass touches on a few interesting concepts not of glass but mobile devices in a broader sense. This said you can see the rational for creating glass aligning with much of what is talked about:

The Mobile Metamorphosis | Jess Greenwood | September 2011

A few statements that stuck with me from this article:

Phones no longer merely connect us to people; as their available features grow more complex, customisable, and personal, they connect us to ourselves.

............................................................................................

"We assume that the way things are now will be the way things are in the future, and the same is true of cell phones. As mobile technology continues to evolve, we have to keep asking how each additional functionality serves not only as utility, but has a human purpose."

- (Turkle, S. 2005)

What is said here very much is representative of Glass and it's vision. they had set out to create a product that creates more meaningful interactions for its users. They acknowledge that they role personal devices play within our lives now extends past a mere utility and has become more a part of us as humans. This in turn calls for a change in system that allows personal devices to make us more human than not.

There has been a recent movement towards creating applications and devices that promote this exact idea. In fact there is even a foundation started by Ex Google designer Tristan harris and Interface designer Aza Raskin, the Center For Humane Technology.

Center For Humane Technology

Their mission is to reverse human downgrading by inspiring a new race to the top and realigning technology with humanity*.* When we look at Google glass that the philosophy behind its design we can begin to see that it was designed with the best intentions, all the hype around it an idealised vision of what personal devices should be. Going back to what Ruth Schwartz Cowan said in her article about tools and industrialisation. The mobile device is very much a tool as it is a work process that we have become accustomed too. Disrupting this system creates discomfort and unease amongst those whom it affects. Just like the example Cowan used of setting the table for a family dinner. Changing this system changes the work process that is involved. Sergey said he notably realised how reliant he had become on his mobile device also acknowledging the difficulties proposed by this change of system. Many critics claimed that Google glass was a gimmick, flop a fail. That said with a range of reasons as to why, there is obviously a clear vision behind what google way trying to change here however it is very clear that the historical properties of what we know to be a personal mobile device was against them.

It is also interesting to see how they have dealt with the shortfall of the high held expectations this product had when it was originally released. Google has now released an enterprise edition of the product that focuses more on enhancing workflow in the workplace environment. Interestingly enough this is somewhat representative of the Amara's law, where the product was originally released with expectations it could not meet creating a shortfall, and only it now beginning to find it way in where it fits as a tool or technological system.

Google Glass Enterprise Edition

Google glass it raises a few points for us to consider and question when looking at the future of this kind of technology.

Is the way we currently use mobile/personal devices downgrading our lifestyles?

In terms of day to day personal devices are we ready for such an extreme systematic change?

Is there a need for some sort of middle ground or transitional technology to get people used such a systematic change?

Is there really a need for the system we know to be changed in its entirety?

Could we take the vision of Google Glass and apply it to current technology?

Should we rather be looking towards generating applications that promote the same values and challenge the way we use our devices, rather than change the device itself?

References:

Cowan, R. S. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave(Vol. 5131). New York: Basic Books.

Winner, L. (1986). Do Artifacts have Politics? From The Whale and the Reactor.

Cadwalladr, C. (April 2019). Facebooks role in Brexit - and the threat to democracy. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

Wikipedia Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Brinn, S. (Febuary2013). Why Google Glass?. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass?language=en

Greenwood, J. (September 2011). The Mobile Metamorphosis [blog post]. retrieved from: https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-resources/the-mobile-metamorphosis/

Turkle, S. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Mit Press.

Center for humane technology (n.d) Retrieved 19 July. Retrieved from: https://humanetech.com/

Pilgrim is a response to our understanding of a real-world problem, four defining pain points and a projected user base. This user base relies on data retrieved from a New Zealand surfing association survey held in 2016, it is estimated that 1 in every 27 New Zealanders surf (“NZ Surfing Survey”, 2016). This equates to roughly 170 thousand New Zealanders who could become potential users of Pilgrim just from surfing alone.  Adjacent industries and activities such as Snowsports, Mountain Biking, Tramping and select Music festivals provide growth channels which would see Pilgrims user base greatly expand hence the emphasis on developing of a versatile and transferable platform.

The concept of ridesharing in recent years has drastically changed the way we travel locally, platforms the likes of Uber (Uber, 2018) and Zoomy (Zoomy, 2018) have taken the New Zealand and international market by storm. Uber boasts as of the end of 2017 a presence in 554 cities across 80 countries (Uber blog, 2017), these figures highlight an attitude shift with the worlds urban population becoming more open to organizing rides through flexible mobile platforms. However, the majority of mainstream rideshare platforms don't cater to the diverse needs of Pilgrims user base. This has seen surfers and those partaking in other recreational activities turn to social media as a point of call, in particular, Facebook (Facebook, 2018). A variety of communities exist on Facebook for the purpose of sharing rides across the board from surfers looking for a wave to students looking to split the cost of driving to a summer festival. However, social media platforms like Facebook are not designed to act as rideshare platforms, they have been turned to because of their large user base and popular messaging applications allowing for ease of communication. Facebook does not provide an effective system of organising rides due to the saturation of other material and its wide range of both users and uses. The job of Pilgrim is to harness all these potential users scattered in disparate facebook and online communities, and connect them using one centralised platform.

The rideshare market is one that caters to many different demographics and is populated by many different companies. The section that seems to be most heavily targeted is the daily urban commuter (carpooling). In New Zealand we have companies the likes of Chariot (Chariot Ridesharing, 2016) providing such services, while globally almost every country or major city has something of a similar nature. Companies the likes of BlaBlaCar (BlaBlaCar, 2018), a global ridesharing service that takes a slightly different model to conventional carpooling apps focusing on long distance intercity travel. The key difference here being drivers get paid per trip rather than doing it out of pure good will. Locally, Co seats ( https://www.coseats.co.nz) provides a service that is targeted at travelers looking to travel intercity, However destinations are limited to NZ’s major towns and centres and it lacks a standardised payment scheme leaving passengers to make set offerings from which drivers can pick an choose from.  Then we have existing action sport ridesharing platforms, most notable in New Zealand is “Snowpool” (Snowpool Limited, 2015) an online and mobile platform which, similar to Pilgrim, provides the opportunity for drivers to list available seats and for riders to find a ride to popular ski fields in New Zealand. However, the platform being founded in 2005 is an outdated service with a clumsy user interface. It fails to make use of advances in technology and additional API’s that make modern day ridesharing so simple and accessible. Furthermore, the platform currently only services central south island ski fields due to its small user base.

Where Pilgrim sets itself apart from existing platforms in this space in the diversity of the needs of its user. It is often a time-consuming process finding someone heading to the same location for the same reasons and settling on a price. By targeting a tight-knit and established community we hope to alleviate the above problems, when the conditions for a particular activity are good the majority of that community wants to be in the same place, a standardised estimate of price will negate the need for time consuming and potentially off putting negotiations.

Our approach to the build was heavily influenced by the framework of human centered design (Giacomin, 2014), the process of designing solutions to problems with the human perspective in mind. A look back at the history of user experience design and existing approaches provided us with clear direction. The author of LEAN UX Jeff Gothelf talks about reaching a stage of consensus between designer and user “Shared understanding is the currency of UX” (Gothelf, 2013). The creation of in depth user personas and empathy maps which provide a detailed breakdown of the exact pain points we had to solve were an attempt to reach such a level of understanding as the app itself and the incumbent User experience should be a direct response to these pain points. In terms of testing and implementing planned features, we looked again toward the lean model for guidance. “The practice of bringing the true nature of design work to light faster, in a collaborative cross functional way with less emphasis on deliverables and a greater focus on the actual experience being designed” (Gothelf, 2013) The core objective being to obtain feedback as early as possible so that it can be used to make quick decisions. The Agile software development  model (Beck, Beedle, Van Bennekum, Cockburn, Cunningham, Fowler & Kern, 2001) works in tandem by outputting work in rapid cycles, these shadow the lean workflow UX to ensure feedback and user data generated can be used in each iteration. The publication provided details the creation of Pilgrims user experience from the ground up. This ensures any decision in the design process would be a logical step based on data from the previous iterative cycle.

Informed by innovative UX workflows,  practical application began with studying existing applications and platforms in an effort to extract, and implement UX features that enhance trust, community interaction and ease of communication. Platforms that facilitated connections involving logistics such as online marketplaces, auction sites often connect user but don’t go as far as handling the finer details. Take for example Airbnb (Airbnb, 2018) Before a transaction is complete users must submit a message of intent which in turn generates an open dialogue allowing a connection to take place seamlessly. New Zealand based charity Sustainable Coastlines rallies a community around public data that shows the impact of a collective rather than the individual (Howitt, 2018). Popular social networks such as Facebook create a sense of trust and security through layers of transparency allowing users to see mutual connections and degrees of separation between other users ( Facebook, 2018) which serve to eliminate any anonymity in their user base, something the Pilgrim platform will rely upon greatly.

As a brand, we are promoting a sustainable lifestyle. Therefore it makes sense to employ a marketing/branding strategy that is reflective of this in sustainable storytelling. An example of this can be taken from the partnership eBay and Patagonia clothing formed named “Common threads”. “Patagonia encourages interest in used clothing in part through its Worn Wear blog, where readers share stories about the adventures they have had with their old Patagonia gear. One year after the initiative was launched, eBay sold 25 percent more used Patagonia products.” (Schwartz, 2013) While Pilgrim operates within a different space to Patagonia, parallels can be drawn between core values. We see our biggest marketing and distribution tool to be the stories Pilgrim facilitates.

Sorry I have been a bit quiet on here recently I have been focused on getting things done ready for next week’s submission. I though It were about time I give an update on where we are at as well as what our presentation format will be.

 Essentially what we are going for is a trade show set up. We see this a fitting choice as per the nature of our project and the types of mediums we are using to present what Pilgrim is.

 Our book that contains all our conceptual break down as well Our UX process starting of with an in-depth analysis of our customer right through UX to UI and our MVP for this project. We also give a brief summary of the beach cleanup we ran and its purpose in validating pilgrim as a concept. I think we are all really happy with how this has turned out. In curating the material, it proved useful to pass it around as an unbound version to see what people thought and what could be added to make it better. I think had we gone of any other medium we would have definitely struggled to find a successful method of communicating so much information without being so overwhelming.

 In the meantime, I have also been focusing on curating the different elements needed for the physical set up. Essentially what we have decided is that our Show reel will be presented on the Imac, the web app on a mac book and the MVP in its very rough form in an IPhone. These are accompanied by what we could call our “merch” in between all the added extras that help fill the gaps between our core deliverables.

 While some would say that isn’t necessary, we feel that the added extras help form and complete the brands identity. Without these smaller pieces the extravagance of our core elements would be lost and therefore they become an important piece of the project.

 Coming into this project we really had no idea of just how big of a task we have undertaken and therefore our MVP will not resemble accurately what we portray in the book, however we felt that in the case of the MVP it would be beneficial to present a functional prototype over an aesthetically one in regard to UI. We have other ways we can compensate for the UI through things like our book. As this is the case I felt it would be beneficial to add in a Wireframe run through to the end of our show real. This takes out any confusion of how the app intends to function that may be missed in the MVP itself or book. Essentially by putting all of what we have out on the table to explain its functionality.

 Our deliverables will inevitably in continuous development following submission, it is a work in progress good things take time. But I believe we have done enough to present a well-rounded and polished concept.

Totes and tees screen printed today. Wax Combs cut and ready and wax packaging ready to go. The only extra left now is the wax itself.

The book is close to ready for printing and binding. Today I have been doing test prints with different types of paper to find the best fit as well as finding errors that go un seen on screen.

Managed get across the way to make our screens earlier today. These will be printed on to several tote bags as well as T-shirts we hope to receive some time tomorrow. The large image is takes from Liams digital project with he steps he has been creating for our surf wax. The graphic being a topographic map of South Piha Beach. 

I found the process of making these fascinating as Screen printing is something I have never done before or even looked into, It was really fun to learn and is something I definitely hope to do more of in the future. 

Some diagrams to help explain our UX flow. In curating our wireframe I realise it would be difficult to communicate the scope of what is involved simply using wireframes. These diagrams serve to simplify what is shown on our wireframes. these will feature on the corresponding pages within the book to help explain what is going on. 

I think I severely underestimated the difficulty of presenting all this information in a simple way. It is hard enough explaining the entire mechanic in general. What I have made  aims to cover only the elements required to explain our concept. This is reflective of existing methods of presenting UX design. Some thing that has inspired me so far has been the best awards and how they go about presenting application in a public manner. They tend to focus on the core UX aspects rather than the nitty gritty of UX elements that are not vital to the core experience.