InForm is a motorcycle grip design (figure 28) that allows users to perceive environmental information in the periphery of their attention through haptic embodiment of surrounding traffic (CA + TR) (i.e., the “how”). The grips essentially are a sort of Interactive materiality. Therefore, users are not required to look at potential hazards, as this would not fit in the context of motorcycling (US). This project contributes to my growth and professional Identity and Vision by conducting an individual design process, focusing on meaningful and immersive interaction, specifically tailored to an application area where interaction is highly constrained (US + CA). Immersiveness is extremely valuable for activities that require focused attention to begin with; where there's no place for distraction. My vision presents itself through the design of an interaction that becomes “part of the motorcycling experience". In other words, the experience is immersive. The value of such an immersive experience here is to prevent distraction while improving awareness of the surroundings in traffic (i.e., the "why"), therefore making the activity safer (US).
I’m a team player. Not so much an individual designer, because I value the opinions and insights of others. Designing is not done in a vacuum, thus during the project, I often sought help and feedback from others in order to optimally apply my own skills and keep an open mind for other solutions. To find the right problem for this project, I conducted several interviews, questionnaires and low-fi experiments (US + BE + CA).
To solve the problem right, originally, I tried setting up collaborations with domain experts including BMW, Yamaha, van Moof, Bosch mobility solutions and TNO (BE). However, none responded or agreed. Hence, I learned to balance my own skills with those of others, by outsourcing or seeking help for new challenges. These included programming the Unity environment (MDC), milling the shafts (figure 29) (TR), evaluating the experiment methods (US), and developing the rotation to linear translation mechanism (figure 30 & figure 31) (TR), amongst others. This approach enabled me to reach a much higher fidelity than former projects. The higher fidelity of the second iteration (M2.2) allowed me to experience a different phase of the design process. I realized that there is as much design value in the optimization phase as in the conceptual phase. Especially for experiences that ought to be immersive. For example, the design of InForm can succeed or fail due to a (non)optimal mapping (CA + US + TR).
I have developed a rather broad skill set regarding prototyping and conceptualizing in former projects and courses, such as laser cutting (figure 32) (from Verso) and mechanics (from the Harley). User experience and interaction fit well with my design identity, as I ensure the user needs are prioritized, and the solution is evaluated over multiple iterations by making multiple prototypes increasing in fidelity (figure 33) (US + BE +CA + TR). In other words, problem first (the "why"), solution (technology, or the "how") later. Each (sub)iteration had its own set of questions ensuring the problem was structurally solved in the right way (finding the right problem was the objective of the first iteration of M2.1 (.pdf)). This is partly the reason the technological implementation, including considerations of AI, is lagging behind (e.g., the rather bulky “final” prototype). The experience and integration into the context had priority and I did not want to be prematurely limited by technological constraints. This is also the reason the grip styling was not implemented into the experiential prototype (CA + US + TR). To illustrate how AI could play an interesting role, an object recognition algorithm could be used in combination with a camera, to estimate the stopping distance of surrounding vehicles and their blind spots more accurately (e.g., trucks are heavier than cars, thus stop slower). This data enables providing more relevant feedback (CA + MDC).
Over the course of the project, it became clear that users do not always know what they want until they experience it, which ties into my prototyping skills to create experiential prototypes for innovative (immersive) interactions (US + TR + CA). It’s much more effective to make and validate radical/innovative ideas. Especially since my vision on integrating interaction into a use flow likely results in unfamiliar concepts that are difficult to grasp and test without the actual experience (US + BE). What’s more, too much initial research resulted in me postponing making decisions all together (CA + US).
