▩▩▩▩▩▩▩ WEEK 13 ▩▩▩▩▩▩▩

Notes from in-class consult with Andreas

As Andreas was going through the submission deliverables regarding the prototype documentation and physical submission, I was a little overwhelmed with anxiety. The criteria for submission didn't seem entirely fair for my prototype, which was structured into three distinct parts. Submitting only one part wouldn't do justice to the experiential nature of my prototype, which necessitated the documentation of discourse and the entire visual narrative. This, however, posed a significant challenge given the limited timeframe of the semester. I had meticulously planned my project timeline spanning two semesters, and the submission details threw a curveball into my plans.

During the in-class consultation with Andreas, we discussed ways to meet the submission criteria despite having an incomplete prototype. Andreas took me through a systematic process to explore various options, and together, we narrowed down to two feasible approaches for presenting my prototype.

The first approach involves creating an explainer video to elucidate how my prototype functions. I plan to utilize Figma to demonstrate the UX flow, offering a comprehensive view of the speculative narrative and the experiential journey. The explainer video will provide a cohesive understanding of the prototype's complexity and intricacy.

To complement the explainer video and further validate the extent of my work, the second approach entails showcasing the accessors my working file. This will offer them insights into the prototype's work-in-progress, emphasising that I'm not merely creating a static mockup but a fully functional and dynamic prototype.

This consultation alleviated some of my concerns, as it allowed me to gauge the time required to complete the tasks. While I initially had reservations about creating the prototype on Figma, I recognized its value in improving my ability to explain its functionality. This, in turn, would streamline the process of receiving feedback and guidance, ultimately benefiting the project's development.

Notes from the session

Dissertation Research Objective Update

I revisited my research objective in the RPO to refine and articulate the overarching goal of my project. While I had previously touched upon these aspects in the introduction, a comprehensive and coherent summary was still necessary.

Upon reviewing my initial research objective, I found it lacked clarity and failed to establish a cohesive connection between the key pillars of my project. The utilization of speculative design appeared somewhat arbitrary, lacking a distinct value addition to the research.

In response, I introduced an additional objective that not only resonated with me but also proved pertinent to the broader research context. My exploration of online sources revealed a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of speculative design in instigating change. Although iconic works such as Blade Runner and Black Mirror stimulated critical discussions within my social circle, relying solely on these examples for justification risked introducing bias into the research perspective.

Consequently, I aimed to position my research as a means to substantiate speculative design's efficacy in addressing complex issues. My goal was to generate discussions that centered on critical analyses of these issues, emphasizing the need for a more unbiased and comprehensive understanding of speculative design's impact.

As I review my dissertation, I'm pleased to note that the pieces are falling into place seamlessly. I've dedicated considerable effort to meticulously address any potential gaps in my research. Every point I introduce is accompanied by a thorough justification, a deliberate strategy aimed at minimizing challenges from readers regarding the credibility of my research background.

Early on, Andreas pointed out the subjective and biased nature of my research. Since receiving this feedback, I've approached each statement and argument with a heightened level of caution. This mindfulness has become a guiding principle in my writing, ensuring that I navigate through the complexities of my subject matter with an awareness of potential biases

Blade Runner 2049 Memory Lab


Black Mirror Eyelink Tech

Dissertation Approach and Method Rework

The atelier's emphasis on prototypes, demanding continuous refinement, resonated seamlessly with RtD's iterative nature. This alignment not only facilitated the process but also complemented the critical journal format employed in the project.

Upon delving into the methodological aspects, I dedicated time to meticulously plan the research method. While initially relying on prototyping speculative outcomes, I recognized a gap in adequately addressing the testing, presentation, and overall documentation of the 'provoking discourse' component.

Inspired by the Mantis Systems project by Superflux, I shifted from User Acceptance Tests (UATs) to focus groups. The intention was to leverage the provocative nature of the prototype to elicit genuine thoughts and reflections before unveiling the true objective—evaluating algorithm literacy.

However, in this methodological refinement, I identified a crucial missing element—the lack of a standardized measurement for algorithm literacy. Acknowledging the potential challenges of relying solely on focus group discussions, I decided to incorporate surveys to develop a scale for assessing algorithm literacy. Crafting questions in a way that avoids hinting at the actual focus group objective will be a pivotal challenge.

While looking for examples of RtD, I came across a tool used for documenting practice-based research called the Process Reflection Tool (PRT). It accommodates reflexive inquiry, facilitating the practitioner to reflect on their own actions, decisions, and experiences in the context of their practice. The PRT will aid in the documentation of the process, at the same time aligning with the format of the Critical Journal.

To ensure cohesiveness, I revisited the dissertation's research objective. Fortunately, the alignment between my approach, methods, and the overarching objective was evident. The only lingering concern is whether the prototype I develop effectively fosters algorithm literacy, a pivotal element that requires meticulous evaluation as the research progresses.

Process reflection tool framework

Troubleshooting Face Cropping w/ Andreas

I sought an additional consultation session with Andreas to address the challenges I encountered last week, particularly in the realm of face cropping. While I was already familiar with the problem, I thought it beneficial to have Andreas explore the working file, unraveling the intricacies of the issue. Initially, I intended to guide him to the specific error, but as he delved into my file, he not only addressed the current problem but also helped me anticipate potential future errors and challenges. This comprehensive approach prompted me to step back and reevaluate my perspective.

Returning to the issue at hand, my initial intuition proved correct – resolving the problem boiled down to applying the same aspect ratio used in the Python file to the operator expression. The challenge lay in identifying the specific number associated with this aspect ratio, compounded by the numerous operators requiring manual resolution input. Additionally, my limited coding skills added a layer of complexity, making it challenging to discern which aspect ratio the line of code referred to. Andreas helped me to determine which aspect ratio is being taken, how to get the number, and how to write it in my expression, which helped me to resolve the issue.

I observed that Andreas employs a distinctive, non-methodical workflow. Since my first year, he has consistently advocated for experimentation and playful exploration. Unlike my inclination toward pre-defined outcomes, Andreas values multiple and varied results that showcase experimentation. I've struggled to fully embrace this approach, as I tend to predetermine my desired outcomes rather than allowing for the spontaneity of experimentation. This deviation stems from my emphasis on visual aesthetics, often leading me to dismiss outcomes that don't immediately appeal to my aesthetic preferences as abortive. Nonetheless, while I find this method challenging, I acknowledge its potential for yielding unexpected and valuable outcomes.

Aspect problem in Python code