Last blog post

Design Process

This is a picture of our different design phases that we went through during our project. As one can see we had a quite primitive sketch in the beginning where we had a starting menu interface which is not presented in this picture. From this first idea we quickly decided that this menu wasn’t such a good idea, so we remade the design and changed the starting interface to the bubble interface, which can be seen in the second image. The argument we have for this change is that we think that the bubble interface is the main feature of the application so it should be presented directly for the user.

At this point the design didn’t look so made for an iPhone platform, so we thought to ourselves about what we could alter to make it more realistic. In the end, we added a menu banner at the bottom which is some sort of standard in many iPhone apps. Later on we added a banner at the top as well as working through the design of our other main parts of the concept which can be seen in our prototype video post.
During our think-Alouds we received feedback about the bubble interface and, more specific, the bubbles themselves. The bubbles where not so intuitive in their design. The users didn’t know what to do with them and the icons presented inside the bubbles wasn’t clear at all. So in phase 5 we changed the design completely and presented text based information in coloured bubbles, instead of icons. This design solution is both clearer and cleaner and the user receives relevant information with just a glance at the screen. It was a difficult choice to decide what the colours would mean and represent, and after a lot of discussion and critique from our exercise group we decided that the colours, for now, would represent when the starting time for each group is due. We settled on three colours: Red (the group is due soon), Blue (the group is due far from present time) and Green (the group is due somewhere in between red and blue).

At the point that we are at now, we added another button in the bottom menu, and added icons instead of text based buttons on the top banner.

Another design choice that we made is that the number of bubbles presented is restricted to seven, this choice was based on Hicks’ Law. The user can, if he/she wants to, slide the screen to the left to get a new set of click-able bubbles.

Final Design

This is the design that we landed in in the end:

How has the work in the group been?

We all knew each other before the project started so we didn´t have to go through the time consuming phase of getting to know each other.
A thing that has benefited the group is that we all had about the same idea of how ambitious we wanted to be with the project. The level of ambition has been pretty high and we have all been wanting to get a good result with the project. That made us put down quite a lot of time and energy to make a good looking application. We decided to focus both on design and functionality but in the end it seems like the app became more design focused. From this we learnt that fine tuning your final design is very time consuming and there are always things that you can improve when it comes to the design.
From the beginning we wanted the app to be user-friendly and easy to interact with and this was also something that we all agreed upon early in the project.

A challenge that we had in the group was that we all had different views in our heads of what our final design was going to look like. It wasn't until we made a prototype that we realised this and it became clear that we had different ideas and views on how our design was going to look like. By making the prototype we could put together our different views and come up with a design that we all agreed upon.

Another challenge that we had was avoiding the genius-design. We created our design mostly based on our own ideas and perspectives and this became particularly clear when we conducted the thinkalouds. It’s difficult to design without using the genius design. Things that seemed obvious to us as creators weren´t always as obvious for the users.

What have we learned

From the reading seminars we got the basic knowledge of what guidelines already exists in the human-computer interaction field. This helped us design our prototype in a way that would make it user friendly. From our design process and the lectures we learned how to combine this knowledge with our own ideas and thoughts in our journey from creating a target group and personas to present a final design and prototype.

From the exercises we learned a lot about presenting our work in front of others who weren’t as familiar with our concept as we were. We believe that the greatest lesson of them all comes from working together in a group and the challenges that follow. We have learned how to work together in a group with a given task and how to keep the process moving forward. We often had to compromise since we didn't always agree on different matters. We believe this was a good thing since that's how working in groups works in the real world.

The importance of setting up a good communication channel to communicate through is also an important key for the group to succeed in it’s goals. We think that we’ve had good communication, throughout the project, but there is always room for improvement!

Evaluation from other groups

The main critique we've got from other groups was that it was hard to get an easy overview of the available bubbles in the interface, especially if you have many bubbles. Although we made efforts to change this, both we and the other groups agree that this was not fixed for the final presentation (when we had our final critique session). But we got the excellent feedback that maybe you could slide easily between groups of bubbles instead of throwing away bubbles to get new ones.

Video of our prototype

Group meetings 5/11 and 6/11

Thinkalouds
We all did our think-alouds separately and let different people test our prototype and give feedback on what they thought about it. We all found it quite challenging to be a quiet observer while somebody else was testing the prototype and we all had to focus hard to not give help or advice to the person doing the testing.

After doing the thinkaloud sessions separately we all gathered and discussed our conclusions in the group. We could see a few similarities in the feedback that we all got but there were also remarks that not all of the testers had thought about.
The most common remark was that our bubble interface is hard to understand and not so clear. The testers thought that it wasn´t entirely clear what each bubble contains. It is hard to get a good view of a bubble if you only see an image of a museum on the bubble. It might be more clear to have the name of the museum as text for an example. We all agree about this remark and it is our main focus when re-designing.

Another thing that some users pointed out during the think-alouds was that it was hard to navigate through the acquaintances part of our app, though some of our testers found it very intuitive and navigated through it quite effectively. Some found that it was hard to know wether the people under my acquaintances were the users acquaintances or people that could be added as acquaintances. We decided to label that window "My acquaintances" so this would be clear to future users. There were a few other parts of the app that were difficult to navigate through like finding the chat in a joined group and navigating in the “my bubbles” section.

One tester thought that all the confirmation-popups after making an action (for example creating a bubble) were unnecessary and that it can be irritating for the experienced user to always have to confirm your actions. This was something that only one of the testers thought about but we think that it's certainly a valid point.

Another user gave us the feedback that the tutorial for the app could be displayed before the user registers a profile instead of afterwards so that the user can get an idea of how the app works before deciding to create an account.

We all agree that the think-aloud sessions have been very useful and that we have gotten some great feedback from it. We realise more and more that we have designed our prototype using the genius-design mindset. We want the app to be as user-friendly as possible and we want it to be easy to interact with. We are going to use all the feedback that we got from the thinkalouds to make our app more intuitive for the user. We have already implemented some changes to make the bubble interface more straightforward and intuitive. We've limited the number of bubbles on the group screen to be seven, according to the essay “the magical number seven, plus or minus two” by George Miller which states that the human brain has a hard time processing more than seven elements at a time. We have also changed the appearance on the bubbles to make it more clear what the bubbles contain and focused more on using icons instead of text. Another change that we have made is that we have added another element to the menu to make it easier to navigate through the app.

                                       New interface                    Before the thinkalouds

To conclude we've included some of the strong and weak points of our app.

STRONG POINTS

1. The users have a lot of power over how they want to make the visits, so they don't feel restricted.
2. It's a cool and easy way to meet new people.
3. You learn new things both from visiting the museum and from meeting new people
4. The layout is familiar and has similarities with other popular apps, so it's easy to use.
5. It's easy to use the app to find new museums in the area and you can find relevant information about the museums.

WEAK POINTS
1. The solution is not optimal for our main persona and our target group (we have deviated a bit from their requirements)
2. The solution demands a pretty high amount of people actively using the app for it to work properly.
3. It demands a certain form of social commitment to be used properly. There may be a too high social threshold for some people.
4. Some people may not return to the app after using it a couple of times. Apart from meeting new people and interacting with them, there isn't that much value to be had.

Group meeting 3/11

Since last time we've continued to work separately with the design of different aspects of the app following some main guidelines we worked out together. Today we had a long session with all members present were we all sat down nearly completed our click-able prototype of Bubble. Based on our individual work, our thoughts and the feedback from our fellow group B5, we've compromised and come up with an interface and lay-out that we all can agree on. For example, there is now a consistent banner on the app that helps the user navigate. We've continued to work on consistency in the app in how the user navigates in the app.

We will soon test our prototype on users (think-aloud) that never have been in contact or heard of Bubble. By observing and taking notes based on how they experience our prototype and how they navigate through the interface as a first time user, we'll obtain vital data on how to perfect our app.

The following days we'll complete our think-aloud's and together discuss if there have been any patterns or issues that multiple users have shown and what we can learn from that.

Here are some screenshots of what a profile will look like.           

We redesigned the group interface and added a banner at the top.

Group meeting 30/10

Today only Mathias, Anton and Emil could attend the meeting.

Since last time we've worked separately with the design of different aspects of the app following some main guidelines we worked out together. This is the first meeting since, and since the deadline for these separate designs has not yet run out, only Mathias and Emil could show their designs. We decided that we could work from them together to flesh out our design even more before designing the last bits of the app.

Right now we're focusing mainly on the interface and the layout of the app, we chose to work mainly in the mockup-program called Balsamiq.

We showed each other our thoughts on the interface and layout for the different windows of the app. We're designing for the iPhone platform and try to stay true to the standard conventions in designing for that platform.

We've worked hard on enforcing consistency in the app, especially in how the user navigates in the app, where buttons are placed and what they do as well as keep a uniform color scheme throughout.

Another important aspect we've worked on is the main flow of the app, and much thought has been put into response when interacting with the app so the user will always feel like the app is responding to every user decision.

During the meeting we discussed and reinvented the design we had largely according to our own experiences of what makes an app good to interact with and with motivations from Fitts´s Law to make interaction as effecient as possible.

We also decided to do a small evaluation before our "think-aloud", so we used the Heuristic evaluation method to test our current design. We were positively suprised to see how many of the points we actually had considered during our main design process.

Here are some screenshots of parts of our mockup showing the initial tutorial/help and the main group interface. The second last picture demonstrates what happens when a bubble is pressed (it expands and shows an overview of relevant information about the group) and the last shows what happens if the expanded bubble is pressed, which is moving into a more detailed group view.

Group meeting 21/10

At the group meeting today we discussed the interface of our app. Emil had made sketches based on our drawings and previous discussions which are presented in the images here: 

We used these sketches as a base for our discussions of the interface and focused on how to make the interface easier, more understandable and relevant for our target group. With the new discussions and views we made new sketches using the same sketch program and after the meeting the interface sketches looked like this:

We wanted to streamline the experience for the user by making it super simple to reach the main function of our concept. That is why we got rid of the menus and instead direct the user to the group finding page. We also decided to have a fixed set of group bubbles of 3 different sizes (the bubble size indicates match with your personal interests) so that it wouldn´t clutter the screen. The reason for having a fixed amount of group bubbles is because Hick´s law states that it is easier to make a decision from a one set of bubbles rather than having several subsets of bubbles. We also decided not to make the bubbles to small so that it would be easier to navigate between them according to Fitts´s law.
To eliminate jumping in and out of bubbles all the time we made it possible for the user to quickly get an overview of the basic information about the group without proceeding to the group page. We worked really hard to make it user-friendly and easy to interact with.

Until the next meeting we decided for each group member to refine different parts of the interface that we feel aren´t finished.

Thoughts from seminar 2

Our findings from the group discussion was fore mostly that we would liked to been told to read chapter 6 (which was partly about brainstorming) before we had the exercise about brainstorming. We felt that this information was brought up a bit too late in the process. Therefore we didn’t have much use for this at this phase.

We further discussed chapters 7 and 8 which was about refinement and about prototyping your product. We are still in the refinement phase and we feel that the book gave us an idea of how to approach the rest of this phase. A flow chart, which was mentioned in this chapter is something that we found was a really helpful tool for the group to get a common picture of our product. We got a more clear idea of our concept.

The book also talked about low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes and we concluded that we, in our group, probably will use a low-fidelity prototype. The heuristic evaluation method will most likely be something to have in mind when prototyping our product. And this, we think, can also be useful in the iterative-design-prototyping-process.

Some questions we discussed was: “How does the relationship between developing and prototyping work and do we think it should be?”

• We concluded that you would like a technological foundation when you build an evolutionary prototype. Some design decisions might not be possible without technology. It certainly is a good idea to think about…!

Another question we discussed was: “How do you introduce a shift in technical paradigms?"

• Our discussion lead to some thoughts how much trust a user must have for a certain company to adapt the design innovations that they produce. We also talked about having a perspective where you know that a new innovation is better through an analytic point of view. This is something that the book called a superior design cause of the fact that it should work better. We also talked about how leading companies easily can force a new design on the user and that later on becomes a standard.

Reading Seminar 2 - Mathias Bylund

We read three chapters from the book Designing For Interactions for this seminar, namely chapter 6,7 and 8. It was an interesting read with a lot of different views to visualise a project, test the project and make improvements.

Chapter 6 Ideation and design principles and it sought to give an overview of how you can develop your idea into something more concrete. There’s is a lot of different principles for ideation and I think it’s a good idea to at least try most of them to know what works for you and especially your group. Some of the more common principles that the book explained was structured brainstorming, personas and metaphors and I think they are all good ways to start developing your concept. I think that you gain the most from having a lot of discussion but it is also important to use these tools to create the interesting discussions from which your group can take applicable knowledge from.

The next chapter was about refinement and how to structure your concept before starting to prototype it. The refinement process is about making good decisions made from research and knowledge that you can apply on your project. One part of this chapter with the title Standards quoted an axiom from Alan Cooper Obey standards unless there is a truly superior alternative, and I think this a smart viewpoint when making decisions for your project albeit a bit boring and maybe not so creative. It was also a lot about principles and my personal favorite was the Poka-Yoke Principle because I think that this principle is something to always take into consideration especially when designing for a wide audience. They went through different approaches on how to make design decisions by concretizing the visual aspect of the concept in last part of this chapter. Personally I think that you don’t necessarily need to use a lot of them but I think it is good to have an idea to know what tools different designers typically use to be able to make smart decisions on what your group should use.

The final chapter was about prototyping, testing and development and all of them are crucial parts to ensure that your project is taking shape the way that it was planned. I think prototyping is all about being creative and analytic to produce good prototypes to gain further insight of how the product should be developed. Also here they give examples of how you can prototype, for example physical, low- and high-fidelity prototypes, you should take these into account but I think the most important part is to constantly question and try different approaches to improve a project. When it comes to development I really like the idea of an agile-development approach as it provides and efficient way to develop larger problems by dividing them into smaller parts I am not sure if this is something we as a group will be able to use for this project but I think this approach is something to consider for bigger projects.

Question: The first thing Leisa Reichelt said on the question Why should designers bother with  being involved in the development process? where she answered: Firstly the design process is the development process and the development process is the design process. The idea that they are seperated from each other is a tragic misconception. Is it common practice to go back from development process to the prototype process? And if so, is it usually on smaller parts or the project as a whole?

Group meeting 16/10

Today we had a group meeting where we evaluated group B5s project and discussed reflections and thoughts on their project and ideas. It was fun to get a bigger view and insight on an other groups project and it gave us some perspective of how to think when we design our own project.
During the meeting we also brainstormed about some good names and slogans for our project where one of the most popular name ideas was "Bubble".
We also made a very simple prototype of our product by drawing the interface on a whiteboard to get a good overview of how we might want the product to look.
The next step for us now is to make a simple prototype app in css/html so that we can get a good perspective of how we want to make the design even better.

  

Reading seminar 2 - Björn Lundkvist

The chapters that we have read for this weeks seminar are about different aspects of designing your product. The chapters cover a lot of great methods of making a good design and they mark some points that are important to take in consideration when working with interaction design.

I found chapter 8 most interesting and I think that it is the most relevant chapter for where we are in our project at the moment. It is about prototyping, testing and development and I think that all those three things are something that could be good for us to put some thought on. We have come up with our final design idea and I think it could be good step for us to make a prototype of our final design so that it is easier to get a grip on what we want to do with our idea. I think that by doing this it will be easier for us to make a good interaction design. We have put a lot of focus on that our final design should be easy to use and understand. We want the user to feel comfortable with our product straight away. Another reason for making a prototype and testing it is because we have created our final design idea mostly based on the genius design perspective and on the interviews that we´ve made. If we don´t test our product by making a prototype it could be easy for us to overlook things that are obvious for us who came up with the product but maybe not as obvious for the user. The one and only unbrakeable law in interaction says “Design for the users” as is stated in chapter 6 and you don´t simply mess around with chapter 6 so I guess the only logical thing to do here is to follow that unbreakable law.

In the text the writer recommends the interaction designer to make several different prototypes rather than just making one prototype. A prototype can be anything from illustrations on a piece of paper to an almost finished functioning product. We have already tried to illustrate our design idea as sketches on paper and simple drawings and I think it could be time for us to make a prototype that looks more like the finished product on the computer. Since we are making an application for mobile phones I think it could be a good idea to try to represent the application by different images in the computer describing every page and function of our final design so that it is easier to understand and view. We can test it by letting some of our class mates have a look at it and have them trying to explain back to us how our product works and how it is used. By doing this I think that we will get a good view on the users perspective and that is important when working with interaction design.

Reading Seminar 2 - Alexis Tubulekas

In chapter 6 we learn how to actually designing something based on your research. By brainstorming you can come up with a lot of concepts, which we did during one of the exercises. You will most likely not come up with your final design straight away but maybe the spark that in the end ignites the fire that is your final design. It is quantity and not quality that is the main objective with brainstorming. The brainstorming sessions should generate dozens of ideas and they should be done “analog”. Meaning with pen, paper, post-its and so on. According to the author, messing around with technology steals time. You need to get your idea down as quickly as possible. I’m skeptical to many of the brainstorming methods in the book. I would like to use reason and careful thinking, but I can only speak for myself.

Once you have your concepts, one must organize them to make them easier to distinguish. This can be done with labels and names. By taking requirements of the design into consideration, or so called design principles, you can determine which one to pursuit. We have, more or less, been doing this when deciding what ideas to pursuit.

Chapter 7 is about how to execute your concept and work with the details. The execution and details depend on the constraints of the project. These constraints could be time, money or technology. When designing, there aren't any fixed rules, but there are principles and guidelines that should be followed. One example of a principle is feedback. Feedback in this case means an indication that something has happened. Without feedback, the user would repeat the action they just did over and over again. We are given a great amount of principles as well as do’s and don’ts in chapter 7. I found most of them interesting and hopefully we can apply some on our design.

In chapter 8 the author talks about the final steps in the design process; prototyping, testing and development. The prototype is an incomplete version of the final product that shows the intended interaction. Without a prototype, the developers of the design can have another vision of how things should work. There are different kinds of prototypes that serve different purposes. A paper prototype is a fast way to demonstrate a product, but maybe not the type of prototype to test on users. A high-fidelity prototype would be a better choice in that case. We currently only have simple paper prototypes, but until next exercise we’re supposed to make an online interactive prototype. Now we have some great tips in how to make a good prototype. 

Question: How does one chose how much effort and time to spend on a prototype?

Reading seminar 2 - Anton

This reading seminar involved chapters six to eight which in short were about the stages in the design process where you come up with ideas, refine them and finally concretize them as a prototype.

One of the things I found worthwhile considering brainstorming is that you need to give room to be a little wild and not to criticize any idea that comes up. I found during our own brainstorming sessions that that kind of climate in brainstorming did help us to really dare to approach our problems in new ways. Earlier we kind of had ideas of ways of solving our project, but I found the ideas we came up with during this brainstorm to be superior.

Right now we’re in the process of refining our main idea, so reading about that chapter felt relevant, although I felt much of what was written were not so much about what to do, but rather things to watch out for as to not confuse users. For example you don’t want to two lines of text aligned and looking similar if the texts themselves are not related.

We probably will start to think about prototyping soon so we can get some user input about the small details we most assuredly will miss. I think we have a strong concept so far, but to really make something people will want to use, we’ll have to spend time making the interface understandable for the users. I didn’t feel like I got as much from the eighth chapter as I did for six and seven, but I think I realize how important this step is in the iterative design process. Prototyping can’t be done the last thing you do, because after you let people try your prototype you’ll end up with a long list of things that need to change. It will be longer the longer you wait because a lot of functions often are tied in to each other, so to change one thing you might have to change another.

My question is: Is it better to involve users during the process of refining your idea, or rather to independently work out a version and then develop a prototype to test on the user if you only have the resources for one test study

Reading Seminar 2 - Emil Westin

For this seminar we were supposed to read chapters 6, 7 and 8 in the course literature. These chapters explain and process the basic tools and methods for HCI design, both for different brainstorming methods, refinement and prototypes and product developing. Throughout the entire HCI industry most of the designers agree that the design process often starts when the designer starts to design a prototype. It's at that step that the product is concretized and become reality; it's the step from thought and sketches to physical form.
  When you have a prototype, you'll have a bigger chance of detecting problems that you might not have thought about before, problems that can not be seen until you actually try to use the product. It could be functionality problems but also things like sizes of buttons, colours and choose of fonts; you can more easily see what works in reality and what doesn't. There are different kinds of prototypes. A designer could choose to create a more lifelike, high-fidelity, prototype, i.e. programming an app in code, or do a more primitive, low-fidelity, prototype, i.e. draw on paper/the computer and then simulate a user session by showing different slides depending on "where the user clicked" on the paper slide.
  I think that our project could really benefit from a prototype, as it is a way to see our work in real time, though I think that a real programmed prototype would mean lots of work and time spent. A conclusion I draw from this is that we should do a more primitive, but still lifelike, prototype, i.e. digital pictures that we use in a simulation.
  Saffer also writes about some guidelines that a designer should think about, when creating adaptive products. These guidelines bring up the importance of how a design should be designed in such a way so the product feels personalized for the user. The designer should help the user to learn by combining doing with understanding, but try to not steer the user in the right way. Rather, the designer should set up a path in such a way so the user can choose to follow by choice. It's a fine line to not steer the user and at the same time "push" them in the right direction so that they can learn the product easily. Another guideline of importance tells about sensitivity and responsiveness. The designer should try to focus on making the application personalized for each user, and that each user should feel as if the artefact is alive and responsive. This, I think, is of great importance in a modern design. As the technology is sprinting ahead and we, the users of todays applications, are used to products that respond for every click we make, it should be one of the main focuses of designing a product. Personalization and responsiveness are two key terms that I think my group should keep in mind when we design our product, which as of today, looks like it's going to be an application for a mobile phone.

/Emil

Design process - "Museipoolen"

Final design!

Main idea: A museum pool for people to form groups with new people and visit the museum together.

Functions:
- Finding and creating new groups, both public and private which people can join.
- Each group has a group leader which manages who can join and the total number of people in the group.
- Each group is represented by a graphic bubble on the main page. If one presses a bubble it expands and covers the screen. In it, you will find all the information; group name, museum, time, address and so on. If you join the group, you can access the group chat. Pressing the icon of the museum will show information regarding this specific museum (people often feel like it is hard to find information about museums). 
- A friend or acquaintance system where you can friend people you had a good time with. It is very simple, and only offers you to invite them again if you create a group or decide to visit a museum.
- A system for showing information about museums in the area. They will pop up like a list of museum icons sorted after your preferences and which museums/exhibitions you've visited before.

Group meeting 6 october 2014

Today we prepared for exercise 5 and continued to brainstorm on our concept ideas while trying to come up with new ones. We made some progress by discussing and trying to visualize our different ideas. In our visualisation process we used photoshop to gain an idea of what our different design concepts would look like. The idea that is the most interesting idea for us at the moment is an idea that we call MuseumPool(BUBBLA!!...???!). The idea is that people that do not have anyone to go with can find people with similar interests and problem of finding somebody to go with. The service will provide an easy to use interface where you easily can find somebody to meet up with and share the experience with. Our current design is some kind of bubbly interface where each bubble represents a person and different colour schemes depending on availability. The bubbles size indicate match of interest, a big bubble means a good match.

Roy - Scenario 2

Roy has invited his best friends to his apartment in Södermalm on a Sunday for a casual hang out. They start by cooking a meal together and enjoying each other's company. They start to talk about video- and computer games, more specifically how great they are. One of Roys friends mentions that Tekniska Museet has as an exhibition called "GAME ON" that displays all kinds of games, old as new. There is an entrance fee but it's not that high. Everyone thinks it's a great idea and they immediately visit Tekniska Museets website to learn more about the GAME ON exhibition. The more they read, the more their excitement grows. They check the fastest way to Tekniska Museet and are just about to leave.

"But wait a minute, says Carl, one of Roys friends,

"It's Sunday today, which means that there will probably be a lot of kids there with their parents."

"Yes that is most likely true" replies Roy.

“This could mean that some of the games will be occupied and we’ll have to wait for our turn.” says Carl.

“You’re probably right, maybe it’s not such a smart idéa to go when we might have to wait in line to play the best games.”

Everyone in the group goes quiet.

"By the way, don't you have the new FIFA 15 on your Playstation 4?" says Carl.

"Yes I have! Why don't we have a tournament instead, it's free and there won't be any annoying kids?" says Roy.

Everyone agrees and instead of going to the museum they sit at home playing video games.

Main Persona

Name: Roy Gyllenstååhl
Age: 22
Hometown: Stockholm, Sweden

Background

Roy Gyllensthåål is from Stockholm, he is 22 years old and studies his third year at Stockholm University to become a lawyer. He lives with his girlfriend Emma and they have been together for around 2 years. When it comes to music he prefers to listen to american folk music, mainly because he likes the feels it gives him but also because it soothes his mind. When listening to music he likes to give his good old guitar a go and play along even though he isn’t that great.

Personality

Roy is a very ambitious guy who does everything to succeed with what he has sought out to do. Humble isn’t really his thing and he loves it when people recognises his daily performances. A cause for this can be that he is the youngest child in the family, a ‘mommys boy’ and that his two older sisters has spoiled him throughout his life. When he sees someone that does something better then him he can become quite jealous and therefore he always tries to improve. Even though he likes to look good in public he does not apply this to when he is at home where it can be quite messy sometimes. He can have quite a temper when things does not go as planned but he has a lot of ways to handle this.

Today

In his spare time he likes to do family research because it fascinates him to see where he comes from. He is also interested in environmental issues and tries to always stay updated with the latest discussions about this. Traveling and seeing new places is something he likes and would like to do more, he believes that you should try to get as much experience as possible while you are young. Cooking food is something he has started to fancy since he moved in with his girlfriend and the kitchen is a place where he has time to reflect upon his daily life. Roy is what you would call a social media junkie and he enjoys taking photos of his daily performances and uploading it to instagram for all his friends to see. He doesn’t really go to museums because he associates those places with his younger schooldays. At that time he was always forced to go and therefore he has a negative attitude towards it.

Pain points

Importance	Primary persona - Roy	Secondary persona - Lena
Finding the museum	5	2
Information about exhibitions	4	3
Interactivity with the exhibitions	3	2
Going to the museum with a friend or in a group	5	1
Clear opening hours	5	4
Using your smartphone interactively at the museum	4	2
Importance of low cost	5	2
How important is it to actually want to visit the museum?	5	3
The importance of being interested in subjects of the exhibitions	3	1
The amount of time it takes	4	2
How important it is to have fun in the exhibit	4	2
How important it is for it to be enlighting	2	5

1: Not very important----- 5: Very important