Theme 5: Design research

How can media technologies be evaluated?

It is not easy to define an appropriate method of evaluation, since media technology is a broad field and its context varies.  In the paper of Haibo Li, the system evaluation consists of three parts. First one is the experimental platform, where the platform is designed according to the needs of the research. The next part is the usability evaluation. Usability is defined as the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which the user can achieve goals in the environment. Trainability is also important in the evaluation of the system, since the user should not need a lot of time to feel comfortable and familiar with the environment in order to interact effectively. As a result, users’ opinions are essential during the design of a product, in order the final product to meet the users’ needs. A prototype could be also a tool of evaluation method since it is a first sample of the final product. People can use it and give us feedback so we redesign our final product, improve it and make it better.

Evaluation of media technology should not only exist at the development of the product but also when we use them. Today’s information and entertainment technologies communicate to us through a powerful combination of words, images, and sounds. We have to enhance our skill to make critical questions about the impact of media technologies, analyze and evaluate them.

What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

Prototype is a sample of the final project that the researchers and user can test it and try it in order to evaluate the final product before produce it. In this way, researchers can solve any problems and improve the final product in advance. The materials of the prototype are different from the materials of the final product so the cost of it will be different. Prototype testing reduces the risks that the final product may not perform as indented. However, there are times that the prototype doesn’t work and the final design works under the same conditions, and the opposite.  Also, building the full design and then realize the problems of it, it’s a more expensive and time consuming process since you have to built the product again and again until it meets the specific needs.

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

Empirical data is the information and the knowledge we acquire from experimentation and observation. In other words, empirical data could be the posterior knowledge that Kant has described. This kind of data in the research can be gained with qualitative methods.

At the first paper the empirical data retrieved through the observation of the kids when the used the prototype. That is to say they record and observe the interaction of the kids with the tangible programming system.

In the second paper the authors use several methods for retrieving empirical data. They drove most of the electric cars in the market to understand how driving range is presented to the drivers. They look up available online information about that. To further understand the opinion about guess-o-meter of the drivers of the electric cars they analyze the information in the first 50 relative forum threads on Google and also conduct some interviews. 

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

I could be considered as knowledge contribution since a design research could be the starting point of another research. However, the design research is based on the observation of the users, but the results of that observation may also lead to some kind of knowledge.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

Design has different intentions in different fields. Within a research project there are specific questions that have to be answered, so the design plan focuses on these. In contrast, design in general focus more on aesthetics and functionality of a product.

 Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc? 

Yes, research based on technology field should be replicable. Due to the constant development of the technology, results of the same research could vary if you repeat the same research after a period of time. Since the skills of the designers and the available tools are getting more, a research of the past could be redesigned and perform better giving out different results.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

The main difference is that design driven research is that is based in the observation of the user. In this kind of research we need empirical data that we retrieve through qualitative methods like observation and interviews.