Concept Presentation

Today we had a concept presentation at the Microsoft Accelerator with the four other groups.

Our presentation went really well.  A link to the presentation slides can be found here.

Here is the presentation at Microsoft:

We got some very constructive criticism.  The main one was about the stand we want to use.  The circular advertisement stand, they said, takes up more space than we can use, since we want to use LCD screens inside (as per our past posts).  The circular shape might put a barrier between people, and since discussion is one of the main reasons to put a physical stand rather than use an app, hindering conversation is one thing we don't want to do.

Spock commented on the possibility of vandalism when recording public opinion, and that a recorded video might be very embarrassing.  Also, he thinks that maybe listening to others' opinions will skew the resuts.

Henit asked about time aspect: how long does the user have to stand in front of the system?  This is important because we don't want to miss the votes of people who don't have much time.  Also, she recommends that if we continue with recording the public's opinion, that the person who recorded their idea gets some credit for what they added to the discourse, like an option to put his video on Facebook.  She also suggested we let people post their opinions from home.

Gilat also talked about the time aspect of our device.  She suggested doing a user study to figure out what is the minimum time needed to get all the information.  She added that it is important to remember that not all issues are for and against, and that some of the issues might be between two options.

Amiel loved the idea of the public opinion video clips.  He told us to consider presenting the information in another way rather than video, such as static text.

concept video: behind the scenes + the video

We worked hard on the concept video.  There's no doubt that it was fun. 

 Here is the final product:

Behind the scenes:

        

Differentiation

We looked at different competitors to see who else is working in this field. We found that the competitors can be split into those with physical systems versus online systems, and those for personal processes versus those for social processes. In princple, the majority of competitors are in the online field. For example, there is Facebook's polling system. Nemala, like PillarPolls, offers different survey platforms such as phone surveys and emails.  As the above clearly shows, we have no competitors in our area.

First physical design

Technological Aspect

 Build (Design):

The build going based on the regular billboard like in the picture below.

We going to replace the interior florescent lamp and posters with two slim screens.  These screens will be connected to PC that will be placed at the bottom of the billboard.

We will also add another shelf around the billboard.  On this shelf, we will put two radio buttons for voting, and another input device (unknown as of now) for the other features.

Software:

General Software Design:

Station Design - Windows Form Application (or WPF).

Voting & Record Form.

The basic form

Pressing play will let one record their opinion on the issue being discussed.

A person recording can see themselves on the screen.

A video can either be submitted or discarded.

Once a video is submitted, it is automatically added to the other opinion videos. 

Before the person voted, the distribution was as such.

After the person voted, the results changed immediately

 Video Form:

The basic form

A passer-by can press play and see objective information.  Some examples  are in the following pictures.

Once a person is done with the objective clip, they can watch the public's opinion

A person talking about their opinion on the issue.

The web application will be written in ASP.net.  It will have the information page of every station, with the informative clip and the public opinion.  We will also add an information page, to keep people up-to-date on new stations and what issues are being debated right now.

Second User Study: Internet Questionnaire and Physical Simuation

The second user study was done in two parts, an internet questionnaire and a physical simulation on the street.

In the online questionnaire, we were checking to see if people consider themselves socially involved  if they feel involved in their surroundings, if feeling involved is even important to them, and if they know what to do if they want to voice an opinion to city officials. the results of the survey excited us greatly because it showed that there was a real need for our product.

How involved do you feel in municipal decisions?

How important is it for you to be involved in municipal decisions?

Do you know how to get involved in municipal decisions?

The goal of the physical simulation was to check how the question being posed in a relevant location impacts discussion in the area. As we expected, people gathered around us and started talking between themselves and discussing and "arguing" about the issue we gave. Because of psychological studies that state that discussion helps people get more involved, and moreover increase vote turnout, we are happy that our kiosk does its part.

Our question: Are you for or against making this square into a parking garage?

People discussing the question:

Back on the old track

Today we presented our storyboard in front of the class.  All of us came out with mixed feeling, because none of us were satisfied with the final result.  We thought that in this new system (the interaction being divided into three separate entities) the product is to scattered and there are too many physical parts.  We realized that we needed to get back to a single physical piece that combines all the features.

We went to meet up with one of the mentors from the Media Lab (Gilat Parag) and after much discussion, we came back to the idea of the pillar.