TINK - sketching product experiences of connected objects

Testing - 93
development of design.
USAGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS
The platform proposes several names to
distinguish the different types of entities
and building blocks.
Even without full functionality of the
platform users were mostly able to
understand the names used to understand
different elements. Generally speaking the
entities where understood correctly.
The ‘Data Analyst’ entity was the only one
that left the participants with some doubts
about its role. While a more understandable
name could be found, I believe that the
meaning of the entity could become clear
once the user will be able to experience its
functionalities.
The representation of the data analyst on
the system diagram was also experienced
as somewhat confusing because of the way
it is represented on the system diagram:
1) The way it is represented doesn’t
highlight the fact that the data analyst is
able to have an overview on the rest of
the system, as it is able to access data
recorded by any other object. Making this
metaphor more visible graphically would
lead to a better understanding of the role
of the entity.
2) More confusion arose by the fact that
the connections between data to track
building block and data analyst are not
required. Test Participants expressed their
expectation of this connection
BUILDING BLOCKS
The building blocks were more confusion
then the entities to the participants.
This might be related to the fact that in
order to operate on the building blocks a
bigger level of understanding on how the
system works is required.
While designers with more technical skills
where able to understand the difference
between a trigger and an actuator, this
was more confusing to people with no
coding experience.
The correct interpretation of the building
blocks was also influenced by the fact
that during the test it was not required
for participants to fill in the code of the
building blocks. The participants that were
able to code would have understood better
how to make use of them if they would
have been told what is actually behind the
building blocks.
Designers with less technical skills
sometimes had problems in correctly
understanding the difference between
triggers and actions. This can be related
to the possible shift in perspective that
is required when dealing with technology:
while designers are used to think from the
user perspective, technologists are more
used to think in term of the technology’s
perspective. For instance a “press the
button” was interpreted as an action by a
designer while it was correctly understood
as a trigger from the developers.
Dividing the system diagram in different
building blocks was sometimes not
done in the expected way. For instance,
instead of dividing object’s behaviours in
all the possible state of that action, the
participants often tended to group all those