Download in Adobe PDF format - Helen Hamlyn Centre - Royal ...

two products – one well designed,
the other poorly so. After analysis
of their functional, emotional and
aesthetic qualities, the students
were split into groups and asked to
select a poorly designed product
and redesign it to a deadline.
The objects ranged from
obstetric forceps and an army hide
rucksack to a cruet set and pencil
sharpener. After presentation of
their proposals, participants were
introduced to some inclusive
case studies and ‘quick and dirty’
research methods, followed by a
simulated experience of disability.
They donned rubber gloves, taped
up their fingers, smeared grease
on their glasses or wore those
which simulated eye conditions and
then handled the object they had
redesigned.
Then it was back to their drawing
boards for another redesign
of the object with a presentation
and judging. Their first redesigns
showed an emphasis on style and
aesthetics while the second leaned
towards the importance of function.
The question remained as to how
to seamlessly reconcile the two.
After an introdution to usercentred
research methods, the
students were given the brief for
Day Two, to spend the morning
capturing user data in a supermarket,
restaurant, home or public
transport terminal. They had to
observe an individual or group
interacting with a product, service
or environment, document them
using sketching, video ethnography,
still photography and find
issues that could be addressed
through design.
Day Two: field work and
storyboarding
The students spent the morning
observing individuals in different
contexts. In the afternoon, they
were shown how to isolate a key
design issue, build a narrative
around their findings and present
it in storyboard form, giving the
context of the person or group that
inspired it.
An introduction to the concept
of multiple scenarios followed. It
is central to understanding how
a product or service inspired by
disability or extreme needs can be
made relevant to different groups
in the population. By identifying
how superficially disimilar activities
by diverse groups of people are
43