The interaction between people with their memory trees plays an important role in this project. To figure out whether or not my proposed solution for the memory tree interface made sense, I did some participatory design using a paper prototype.
My participatory design toolkit consisted of the following:
After briefly explaining the scenario, I gave each participant the following tasks:
Findings with Dave
Dave approached the prototype with the idea that his memories would be broken down into the following hierarchy:
The first example he cited that happened to fit this model was his parent’s home. This was a result of me forgetting to mention that this takes place within the context of a city where not all locations have well-defined spaces. Nevertheless, he proceeded and the following insights were a result of the exercise:
Findings with Will
Wrapping It Up
I realized that during this exercise, it was really important to clarify that each person has their own Story Forest. While a person can create trees and memories in their own forest, other people can also contribute to that person’s forest by tagging them in their own memories.
Also, since each person has their own Story Forest, the accessibility of memories of one forest are independent from another. Continuing from the example above, after I view the memory that my brother indirectly added (step 3-4) to my tree via tagging, I would not be able to access that memory for another year. Meanwhile, this would not affect the accessibility of the memory on my brother’s tree.
Overall, I think the interaction between people and their Story Forests (as seen above) creates a support structure that motivates and incentivizes them to help each other to achieve their goals. This conclusion would not have been possible if it weren’t for Dave and Will asking about how one’s action affected another.