Speculative Design Brief Response #1

Response to brief by Andrea Botero, Joanna Saad-Sulonen, Mariana Salgado and Sanna Marttila, Aalto University, Helsinki

Andrea Botero is an interaction designer with a Doctors of Arts Degree on New Media (COL-FIN).

Joanna Saad-Sulonen is an architect and new media designer finishing her Doctor of Arts degree in New Media (LE-FIN).

Mariana Salgado is an interaction designer with Doctor of Arts degree in New Media (ARG-FIN).

Sanna Marttila is a media designer pursuing a Doctors of Arts degree in New Media (FIN). They have worked together and independently in numerous research and development projects and share an interested in participatory and open approaches to the design and development of technologies, services and media that weave new technologies and the practices of everyday life in meaningful ways.

Advertisements

About Lucy Kimbell

Director, Innovation Insights Hub, University of the Arts London. AHRC research fellow, Policy Lab, Cabinet Office. Associate fellow, Said Business School, University of Oxford. Author of Service Innovation Handbook. @lixindex
Video | This entry was posted in methods, research and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Speculative Design Brief Response #1

  1. Wow – this is really beautifully done (also, great handwriting!). However, as I tried to understand your analysis and suggested solutions, I found myself grasping for additional context. For example, I didn’t understand how/why you evolved from the first scenario to the second one (with orange notes). This is probably a mix of me needing to spend more time on the video (and maybe pausing it more often) and some changes to the video itself, for example adding a little explanation or comments on the side. Thank you for sharing this!

  2. Andrea Botero says:

    HI Phillip, thanks for your reactions to our disorganized video 🙂 I must confess we left it ambiguous on purpose. Also the proposed solutions you mention aren’t really solutions either cause we believe “its complicated” ;). Which of course does not help very much we know….
    I will share what I believe was or rationale when doing it (to the risk of ruining the every point of having it meant many things) because the nice people doing this research want to have some conversation here isnt it?

    – The first scene has this person with this problem in the middle,and a host of others trying to understand whats going on with her. Sounds very social, very human centered… all nice and pretty. However we aspire to have more nuance to the brief and blew the whole thing off (literally… our stop motion technique failed a bit and we blew too fast there and we had no time to repeat ha ha)

    – The second scene has this person and all the others (including cats and dogs, buildings and trees, and you name it) and aims to suggest interconnections and practices that might be arranged different to create new attachments, but as there is also conflicting things.. it gets complicated. We cant be afraid of the complexity.. we should all “stay with the trouble”

    – We end with some of the themes that preoccupied us lately, things we are looking closer in the stuff we are doing and that we believe talk to the type of SD that this project wants to map.

    Maybe Sanna, Mariana and Joanna share their thoughts in here later…
    (thanks for noticing the fine handwriting, a nice by product of 4-5 years of art-design-architecture education)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s