jump to navigation

Make Up 4 Activate – Canadian Tire Explained April 12, 2010

Posted by Jenkin Chu in : Check it out, Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Projects , add a comment

As a Canadian living in Canada, most of us has gone to Canadian Tire for whatever reason. In terms of the building’s design for the countless locations they are placed, they all give the customer a very roomy feel. The entrances are large with products as far as you can see all lined up. This also gives the customer the impression that Canadian Tire will have what you need which is very reassuring. When there are a lot of people, most normal stores will have long line ups in the cashier areas because of the limited people or lane open. However, in Canadian Tire each major section (example: bikes/rec) has their own booth for customers to pay which reduces the crowding for people who buy the smaller things. The employees are all in uniform creating a more professional appearance even though their skills may not always be up to par. Also, when employees see someone looking for something, most of them will come up to the customer and ask if they need any assistance which can be very helpful for those who are shy to ask.
If you have been to canadiantire.ca you’ll notice the site is well organized so looking for stuff is a breeze. A great feature they have in the site is the product review and ratings. These ratings aren’t done by Canadian Tire workers but rather the customers who like to make a say about what they bought. This helps Canadian Tire to know what people liked or disliked about something and other customers can see what others thought so they can make a better decision when making a purchase.
In my personal opinion, Canadian Tire has done a great job in terms of their system but their products lack the proper maintenance. For products out of the box, it doesn’t really make a difference but for things like bikes they have room for improvement. The assembly team in the background do a very rushed meaning the bikes on the shelves are not properly tuned. Even though the quality may be decent for it, lacking the required tuning causes customers to mistaken it for bad quality/design. This applies to the Bike/Rec, Automotive, house decor and a few other sections of the store.

Best and Worst overall Project from Activate. April 8, 2010

Posted by Maxyne Baker in : "Hosts" team, A/V: projection, audio, etc, Check it out, Other sections, Process/Blueprint team, Proj3: ACTIVATE!, Promotion+Documentation, Set+props: CHAOS, Set+props: ORDER , add a comment

Yikes, What a Whirl Wind of Frantic Activity. Every time I thought I had a handle on the situation, it was but a fleeting moment. I experienced, Art vs Design, The Beer Box, Walk the line, The Friendly Giant Reading Corner and the White Box. Reading some of your experiences make me regret having not made a bigger effort to try them all.

I learned a lot, and my mind has been filled with more questions as each day passes.

Tie for Best

Beer Box/ Walk the Line

What was that talking 12 pack of Labatt’s 50 all about ???????

I visited the box twice, and had the pleasure of introducing him(?) to Alisha. Although the experience had no branding it’s Entrance was enticing. How often do you find a lonely 12 pack of beer sitting out side of 100 McCaul.?  The box was egging people on to talk with him, it’s voice amplified slightly to draw attention, obviously. Initially, I thought the beer box with the voice represented a little person who was perhaps living in the box, I guess because, there was a voice coming from within it.  I began quizzing him(?) about life in the box. Did he mind the lack of windows? He said he didn’t because there was always beer in his crib. I asked, Did he get out? No his friends came over because there was always beer. I’m now wondering if the word beer was in every sentence he spoke. This box definitely wanted to talk about beer. This limited our conversation in the end,  and sadly because of the redundancy of the conversation and fear of our set toppling over I left, without answers. But for 5 minutes it was intriguing, fun and un-threatening. I returned later to see how the box was faring, (This would have been about 2 oclock) and by this time he was a little more lewd. I think he’d been drinking. Mind you, wouldn’t it be nice if all drunk obnoxious people fit in a little box like that.

Beyond these thoughts I am still perplexed by what it all meant. I think confusion would be it’s reflective quality in my opinion. It was fun, simple and ambiguous. I liked it’s ambiguity, just because. But as a mode of communication I don’t think it was successful. It was more of an installation than a piece of experience design. Visceral, I’m not sure, the beer box on the table was intriguing, no doubt. And this made it’s mode of interaction clear. I should mention, the box had several body guards rather than hosts. I don’t think the experience has changed my behaviour. At least I hope I haven’t been having conversations with other inanimate objects.

Best 2

Walk the Line

This experience had great extension. All morning I had been wondering what was going on with the tape on the stairs. I was invited while, already walking the line ( with a friend, on the stairs) to walk the line further….inside. In this way  the user is practically engaged before they know it. This seems really smart psychologically. The branding was clean, you can use the 3 words literally, or metaphorically, meaning…”take the chance”. The host was fun and persuasive. Pretty simple script. I think it consisted of Come Now Walk the Line! and No you have to…..

The experience itself was simple in construction and well executed visually. Viscerally intriguing for me because it was much like a game of twister, consisting of 4 erratically zig-zagging lines painted in primary colours complicated by crisscrossing ropes at waist height stretching from side to side. The challenge was to choose any one of the 4 lines and together with a partner ” walk the line”. Here it is important to understand that one of the participants has been blindfolded. I liked the whole experience’s openness. I felt much more comfortable putting on a blindfold, having been able to see everything already. Here I think the stakes need to be higher. The interaction between friends is nice, and promotes trust and working together, but perhaps it’s a bit too “kiddy ride”.  After discarding tightrope walking  as an option,  I decided I would  incorporate the use of cell phones, and earbuds, having a bigger distance between the partners. A little like a remote controlled car, only voice activated human instead. Although I love all things tactile, this experience might be heightened by removing human contact other than voice. Some how I think the users would bond more deeply. Behaviorally, yes I do feel closer to my partner in “Walking the Line”after sharing the experience with her. This experience has stayed in my mind, as a fun memory of the day, so in that way I’ve reflected.

Worst

White Cube ( Cube)

Completely creepy top to bottom.  The concept of following people, and almost treating them like prey is disturbing. Was this experience designed to open our eyes to the possibility of being stalked? Having our information pirated ? Their intent is really foggy. I’m personally tired of being both stalked and living in a culture of fear, hence  it held absolutely no attraction. I’m not sure where the engagement ended in this one (are you engaged if your being stalked) There is an un pleasant reflective quality to this experience. I think alot of women would be really sensitive to this experience, particularily if they’ve ever been stalked . Here I must say their concept wasn’t clear, just creepy. Perhaps explaining the process to the user before they engage would be a more sensitive approach.


the best and worst of Chaordic Collaboratorium April 8, 2010

Posted by Christina Mary Dery in : Check it out, Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , add a comment
First I would like to compliment the publicity team for their great job at creating nice contrasting and colourful posters. Of all the projects I think our poster stood out the most (although there could have been more put up). Not only the posters but also the awesome job at documenting the entire event from set-up to takedown through photographs and video. The Collaboratorium itself with he bright paper with words created a nice touch to the brand and it attracted people to the booth.
Overall i think our booth design with transparent walls with magazine cutouts really appealed to people and created a sense of wonder.
The experience cycle for the participant was lacking in terms of the experience itself until the end and the reason for this could have been because many people did not fully understand the link of the first room (chaos) to the second room (order). Most people just walked into the chaos and right away wanted to walk through to the order room, not noticing the message that was being conveyed through the images and the chaotic lights and sounds.
In terms of the challenge to challenge other people, the experience was successful because once people found out that the previous group had given them the words, they realized that they wanted to top it and create a more difficult experience for the next group. In terms of extension, this could have been more successful if  the words were chosen by us and they had specific links that they had to figure out because many of the phrases people came up with were not very interesting in my opinion. I think if there was a definite answer to each linkage of words then people would have tried harder and their minds would have been more engaged.
Overall I think the experience was no the worst because certain areas really worked while others not o much, but i think people had fun and enjoyed the game type experience. Personally i think the only reason it did not work so well in certain areas was because we did not have control over our environment such as lighting and also our time limit. All taken into consideration i think we pulled it off and put on a good show; after-all we did have a line-up most of the day! 😀 Hosts did a good job aattracting people and once the show got rolling we were able to explain the challenge effectively so that people understood.
Good job everyone! it was a great experience 😀

Activate! Latest Buzz on the Best & Worst. April 8, 2010

Posted by Talia Claire Dimerman in : Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , add a comment

Activate! was an exhausting – yet exhilarating experience. I had the opportunity to try out quite a number of projects done by other classes, and was excited over some more than others.

I was immediately attracted to “WTF” (What the Fact?). I would say this one would come close as the Best Overall project of the ones I took part in / observed (aside from ours of course – which ranks #1 in my books) – as I was instinctively intrigued. What the Fact? was the experience project setup directly next to ours, providing a great visceral reflection through the tent-like structure, with yellow and red stripes. Immediately I see two hosts, one standing on either side of the main entrance, motioning me to walk over and enter. They appear friendly, but limit the information they provide me with prior to entering. Not completely clear on what is expected to happen – as there is clearly something enclosed within the drapery, I grab a friend and enter inside. Before my eyes is this huge, glaring monstrous face gazing at me. I was instructed to push on a button. It made me feel nervous, tense, and was afraid the first time around entering that if I were to push the button, the huge face would do something crazy like have smoke coming out of its nostrils. In the end, it simply dispensed a little envelope (stamped with “WTF”) with a card inside – on it a random fact. I was completely relieved! For instance, would you have ever thought that…?

Fact:

A rat can last longer without water than a camel.

OR

Fact:

A hungry wolf can eat 20 pounds of meat in a single meal, which is akin to a human eating one.

I believe it succeeded because of multiple elements – the project was interesting, random, completely in keeping with the title, and certainly made my heart pound. I entered, was engaged with the mechanics and visceral components, and exited to show my friends the random facts that I had obtained. Of course it may have ruined the anticipation for them, but I was caught up in the excitement. When reflecting on the project, I see that the title has a nice play on words – the “what the f” is usually associated with someone being surprised or shocked at hearing or seeing something. One would assume that this phrase would end with the f word, but the word “fact” fits in nicely here as that is what we were provided with. The surprise element remained intact.

I feel that more could have been done with “Moodcubed”. There were quite a number of visceral elements, as they firstly did a very nice job of advertising prior to (facebook event page), and had students from their class walk around between 12 – 3 pm with intriguing cubes on their heads, trying to pull us towards their event. This worked as I walked with someone in their class over to this, and saw a student standing on a box. She had a great personality and was shouting to get others to come over. I was slightly confused about what to do next. Someone else instructed me to roll a fairly large dice. I rolled it to reveal a specific colour, and was then motioned towards one of 3 boxes standing up that matched the colour I had rolled. It took me a couple of seconds to realize I had to go underneath the box. Part of the behavioural experience was to put on a pair of headphones while surrounded by darkness – and listen to the sounds of cars zooming past one another, linked with a small screen (attached as part of the structure) providing a video loop of cars continuously in motion on the streets. After approx. 15 seconds or so the video loop stopped – so I presumed to take off my headphones and leave.

I thought there would be another element. Something that would help me end this experience feeling satisfied / having taken something away – maybe an interpretation or an emotion. I was unsatisfied as I had hoped to get something interesting out of it – especially because this project had been built up so nicely. I didn’t feel a great level of excitement – as there should have been a strong engagement factor than just watching cars and listening to the sounds they make. I exited confused – trying to grasp onto something to take away from it. Maybe it all revolved around chance and how that links with information, but my mood didn’t quite change. Maybe if the experience were to involve what was under all 3 boxes / cubes, there would be something more intriguing or exciting to get out of the experience.

Sorry for a lengthy post – however wanted to express my thoughts in great detail. And wanted to finish with a thank you to everyone in our class as I believe our experience was one of the strongest – and thought everyone worked well together.

Activate: The Good and The Bad. April 8, 2010

Posted by Vanna Carmina Caralipio in : Check it out, Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , 1 comment so far

Critically review the Best Overall and Worst Overall project from the whole ACTIVATE! event.

In my opinion the best in the show would have to be the class project called “What the Fact?”. I felt this one succeeded the most in the show. The visceral design of the yellow and red tent was attractive and caught my attention. There was a close connection to resemble a carnival or circus, and bringing that experience in this enclosed space. The suspense feeling came to me as I was waiting to go in the tent, asking myself why lies behind the curtain. When I entered I was surprised that it was a robot head that when you push the button it “spits out” a random fact. Their concept came out loud and clear, understood what they were trying to convey. When receiving the fact you instantly think “wtf?” than it relates back to their title “what the fact?” I found it quite humourous. This was consistent throughout the whole show. The experience cycle they created was interesting and successful because the attraction was eye catching as well the host were able to get the attention of others pretty well. When entering the tent and finding the head became more interesting, able to interact with the head and getting the fact continued the experience. When finally leaving the tent the expression on your face gave the others that were waiting more interest to enter. As for the extension people all over the event wanted to try this project out. Overall it was fun and worth the wait.

In my opinion I felt the project that didn’t have a big impact to me was the white box. The visceral design was too flat and not that noticeable to people unless you actually looked down at the floor.  From what I saw I didn’t fully understand why there was a white box and what the viewer or the person that was experiencing it was suppose to do. The mode of interaction wasn’t clear and there wasn’t anyone to answer the question I had. Unless you were invited in the facebook event there wasn’t any informantion on this project. I would have improved it if there was a bit more promotional aspects or some sort of info about it. There was no experience cycle for this project, nothing was clear to me. From what I saw for myself not a lot of people were noticing the box or were avoiding stepping in the box. Overall there was a lot of confusion and unanswered questions.

This event was fun to see what every class have done. It was interesting.

By our powers combined…. ACTIVATE! April 7, 2010

Posted by Calvin in : Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , add a comment

I had the pleasure to sample most of the projects in the great hall. Unfortunately I totally forgot there were more in the lecture hall. This review will focus on my overall impression of what worked and what didn’t and use certain projects to illustrate in more details.

What worked:
> Good attraction: Projects that are raucous (the Protest?), had line up (Elbow’s Deep), had good hosts (WTF), and/or visually intriguing (balloon popping), got my attention right away.
> Continued engagement with a human: Elbow’s Deep (the one where you put your hand into a box while blindfolded) has a host talking to you throughout most of the experience. Human interaction often is quite memorable. This is not to say installation type that is purposely isolated (ex. Emotion Box) are failing. It’s more like if there is a host is she/he attending to you instead of looking around and “abandoning” you.
> Interesting concepts: can be mentally interesting – a random fact (WTF) – or viscerally – popping a balloon.
> Good extension: A take away to show your friends works also as attraction (paper slip from WTF). A record of your engagement also helps keeping the experience in the memory. For example, it just so happened I cut myself the next day and I used the Band-Aid from Elbow’s Deep, who knew!

What didn’t work:
> Bad host (unmemorable attraction and engagement): Some project like the cross-word one had very lazy hosts. I stood there for a while looking for someone to explain what to do and no one was there. I ended up walking away without trying. The balloon one is interesting enough that I asked around myself for instruction, but then the host just talked and left – I felt slightly “abandoned” and the human interaction was incomplete.
> No Attraction: several projects seemed to be content of not advertising itself in anyway (for ex. The Diary and the cross-word one; I tried neither).
> lubed condoms: my hand smelled nasty after touching them! (Elbow’s Deep) (Technically this worked great for a memorable experience)

What can be improved:
> Short experience that are relatively linear: most of the experiences did not require long attention span and are very straightforward. You pop a balloon, or you press a button and receive an envelope, and you are done.
> Entry and Exit experience is mostly sidelined: If there is some sort of narrative so there is a more thought out beginning, middle, and end of an experience (entry, engagement, and exit), and if they are linked together coherently, the experience will be stronger. It’s possible with the short time frame we had most teams only have enough time to think of the engagement.

It’s interesting that a lot of the ideas in the great hall came up in some form during our class’ brainstorming and prototypes! (knowledge booth, fear box, emotion box, maze)

My 2 cents.

We had the best ACTIVATE…and I actually had fun. April 6, 2010

Posted by Reginald Leung in : Exer3: User Scenario, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , add a comment

WE ROCK

1) Critically review the Best Overall and Worst Overall project from the whole ACTIVATE! event

The ones that I went to were fairly interesting given the budgets everyone had previously collected. Some were similar but executed differently. All projects that I tried did engage me in all three dimensions but some dimensions were weighted more heavy than others.

The balloon popping one engaged me in a viceral sense because it was so nice to look at with all the colours and the flower pots and it helped that it was pretty much the most unique in the pay that it was set up. But when it came to the other two dimensions it was lacking. Like it didnt give me all that to take away from and behaviourally all I got to do was pop a balloon and read the message in it. And some messages were pretty random and not insightful or philosophical. But thats ok. I did like the light nature of their activate. And I think they were the only booth that had music playing for the other students that I could dance to.

The fact machine one I didnt really understand. It was sort of a bigger version of a fortune cookie. I didn’t get why it gave us random facts and why it was in a circus tent. Their circus tent was really well constructed though I must say. But the whole idea fell a bit flat because I didnt know what I was supposed to make of their random facts. I actually wanted to know if they really did their research with these facts because some of them came off as correlations and we know that correlation doesnt mean its fact.

The protest that was going on trying to get people to sign the petition to get rid of the arts program at OCAD and merge it with design was funny. It did engage in a visceral (The signs) behavioural (the actual protest and wearing of pins they were passing around) and reflective way (made you think what would happen if they did merge it and if art is really necessary?) Even though if the work that was involved probably wasn’t very much and simplistic it did manage to touch on all three dimensions.

Those are just a few that stuck in my mind that were worth mentioning. There wasn’t a glaring booth that was weak in my opinion. I think some were more exciting than others. Some, you could tell, were less planned than others. And some were just there to have fun and I think thats ok. I actually had alot more fun than I anticipated. It was a nice break from my busy schedule and to socialize with friends. I ALSO had fun rebuilding the structure too. Was stressful to try and get it done in time but I had fun redoing it with Jacob and everyones help. I also had fun setting up the structure and all that stuff too. I it made me sort of think about minoring in ED. The only thing was people that knew me came up to me periodically shocked that I could work with a hammer and drill…lol yeah whatever what like its hard? All I had to say to that was “I’m full of surprises” lol.

Best and Worst of ACTIVATE! (and Why) – due Apr 9 April 6, 2010

Posted by Greg Van Alstyne in : Exer4: Best and Worst of ACTIVATE!, Official stuff from Greg, Proj3: ACTIVATE! , add a comment

For your last exercise you will critically analyze and evaluate results from Activate! 2010.

Deadline: before our next class, 12 noon, Friday April 9

You have two choices:

  1. Critically review the Best Overall and Worst Overall project from the whole ACTIVATE! event. Do this if you saw and tried at least 4 or 5 of the other class projects (not including ours, which is off limits for this review). Did the project engage you in visceral, behavioural and reflective dimensions? Was the concept and mode of interaction clear, and were the touchpoints consistent? For the one that fell flat in the biggest way, what went wrong and how would you improve it?
    or
  2. Critically review the Best and Worst Features of our own ACTIVATE! project, Chaordic Collaboratorium. Do this only if you didn’t see or actually try very many other class projects. Features include: brand touchpoints (were they consistent, appealing, memorable?); qualities such as immersion, sensual engagement, or suspense; human interactions (were the hosts/facilitators responsive, flexible, smart, agile?). Don’t be shy — learning how to critique the good and the bad dispassionately is a valuable experience!

Make sure to substantiate your judgements, using objective (‘the reason why it succeeded is ____’) as well as subjective criteria (‘it made me feel ____’).

Your exercise will be evaluated for:

Email me if you have any questions.

Chaordic Photos! April 5, 2010

Posted by Maxyne Baker in : Proj3: ACTIVATE!, Promotion+Documentation , 1 comment so far

These are some of the photos from our Activate project! What’s our Flickr account? We can upload the rest on Flickr.

Good job everyone! Thanks!

Activate Use Scenario from Blue Print Team April 4, 2010

Posted by Maxyne Baker in : "Hosts" team, A/V: projection, audio, etc, Check it out, Other sections, Process/Blueprint team, Proj3: ACTIVATE!, Promotion+Documentation, Set+props: CHAOS, Set+props: ORDER , add a comment

Activate User Scenario

Notes for:
Promo team
AV team
Props/Sets team
Hosts team

[Chaordic Collaboratorium]

Host note: overall “feel” or “style” is a bit like a show. With some flair. Not completely casual. The title itself is funky, “Collaboratorium”. It will be a performance.

Attraction:

The Set: A simple (white?)10’ x10’Box with 2 curtained entrances. Provocative words and phrases are written in black marker on 81/2 x 11 pieces of paper in neon colours (reflecting the post-its inside the experience).

➢ promo team
➢ A host greeter (wearing a t-shirt and nametag) suggests 3 to 5 people to go through the experience, “bring your friends!” “It’s a collaborating experience!” or group strangers into one (if the users are comfortable with it); think a bit like “circus”, coming into our tent! A little mystery, thought provoking maybe, fun, etc.

Maybe juggling, paper cubes…with words inside…
Entry:
➢ greeter pulls the outside curtain aside to reveal entrance and let user group in then close the curtain behind them, leaving them in the “chaos”
Engagement [1]:
➢ time based “chaos” experience, with audio and visual stimuli
➢ stimuli will be incoherent, stimuli includes: graphic collage on wall (prop set), projection of video towards user (AV), layered audio clips (AV)and 20pieces of ribbon staggered vertically( in length) in the space hanging to shoulder level.
➢ Stimuli will be flashing on the chaos collage, and the ribbons as well as the users.
➢ at about 30 seconds and the stimuli stops (audio and projection)
➢ immediately a host’s hand (can be gloved with bright colour maybe neon) protrudes through the slit in the curtain wall (~at chest height) and presents the user team with an origami cube made of translucent paper (tracing paper for ex.) with a word or phrase, topic written on the inside of the paper (which will show through the translucency), together with an audio “ding!” (i.e. with front desk bell)
➢ after the users take the cube from the host, the dividing curtain will be pulled back to reveal the second half of the room and make the room whole (the rest of the room will be mostly white, with projection on a white board)

Engagement [2]:
➢ host greets and introduces the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” (a place for collaboration, where senses are made from chaos, etc.)
➢ host instruct the users to “take the word, phrase, idea out of the box” “release the word out of the box” something to gently suggest “ think outside the box” with out giving it to them completely.
➢ The users then open the origami cube and read the word inside.
➢ The then Hosts introduces the activity.
Activity

Users have 2:30 minutes to collaborate and link the word, term or phrase on the origami paper with the word term or phrase written on the neon post-it note on the white board.
Note: We will brain storm in Sunday with some thought provoking words. And prepare some cubes and signs for the outside( the carrot). Juice it up so to speak. By expanding the rules to include phrases and terms we make the challenge more controversial. The psychology here is; people want a voice in these matters.

➢ host gestures towards the post-it pads and markers, and white board, indicating they are available for use in brain storming.
➢ the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” logo and a timer are now be projected on the board; once everything is introduced the timer will start counting down from 2:30 (minutes) (one person control projection; anyone from our class). Perhaps some audio begins, something that symbolizes space and clarity.
➢ the users are free to collaborate using post-its and whiteboard to complete one statement. They users write this statement on a post it note. The host is not involved in their thought process, but just facilitates with supplies and perhaps juggling paper cubes ({can anyone juggle?} Could this make the stakes seem higher… add a “don’t drop the ball”sense to the room and the activity ).
➢ The user team has now used up all their time.
➢ The host asks permission to take a photo of the group complete with the their collaboration and statement written in larger letters on the white board.
➢ The hosts also then ask if the users would like the photo emailed to them or, offer take photos for the users.
➢ Now the host asks the users to select 2 words, terms, topics or phrases that are not the same ones given to them at the onset of the challenge.The can use words that are, or are not taken from their final statement.

Note:
Here the host can encourage the users to raise the stakes by making the challenge more difficult, or thought provoking, and creative. They are through thought, linking two seemingly unrelated things. Which is the basis of all creative thinking ( according to Objects and Environments).

➢ The host then asks the user to circle the 2 words, terms, topics or phrases on their “statement post-it” if they are included as part of their statement. If the words aren’t in the statement, they can add them with marker, even linking post its together.(This allows the user to process the thought further).
➢ Having made their 2 selections, the users now write one thought on a neon“post it” and the second on a piece of translucent origami paper( just like they where presented with in the beginning of the challenge).
➢ The host wisks the piece of origami paper off into the hands of another exiting host.
➢ The host show the users the lineage of words being accumulated so far in the projection (with the users photos beside the words), users see themselves adding to the evolution of ideas; and host stick the post-it note with the statement to the wall with the growing collage of previous final statements.
➢ Another piece of neon paper with the same word is added to the group of words on paper, on the outside of the box.
➢ When this occurs, some twinkling audio magical, happy sound emits, just for length of the action, emphasizing the contribution.
➢ Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)
➢ The users exit; fighting amongst themselves for the little piece of origami paper, the lasting metaphor and memory of their contribution to “The “Chaortic Collabratorium”. Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)

Meanwhile, A second host folds the origami paper with the new word, term, topic or phrase for the next group. In fact, Everything resets, ready for the next group.

Activate User Scenario

Notes for:
Promo team
AV team
Props/Sets team
Hosts team

[Chaordic Collaboratorium]

Host note: overall “feel” or “style” is a bit like a show. With some flair. Not completely casual. The title itself is funky, “Collaboratorium”. It will be a performance.

Attraction:

The Set: A simple (white?)10’ x10’Box with 2 curtained entrances. Provocative words and phrases are written in black marker on 81/2 x 11 pieces of paper in neon colours (reflecting the post-its inside the experience).

➢ promo team
➢ A host greeter (wearing a t-shirt and nametag) suggests 3 to 5 people to go through the experience, “bring your friends!” “It’s a collaborating experience!” or group strangers into one (if the users are comfortable with it); think a bit like “circus”, coming into our tent! A little mystery, thought provoking maybe, fun, etc.

Maybe juggling, paper cubes…with words inside…
Entry:
➢ greeter pulls the outside curtain aside to reveal entrance and let user group in then close the curtain behind them, leaving them in the “chaos”
Engagement [1]:
➢ time based “chaos” experience, with audio and visual stimuli
➢ stimuli will be incoherent, stimuli includes: graphic collage on wall (prop set), projection of video towards user (AV), layered audio clips (AV)and 20pieces of ribbon staggered vertically( in length) in the space hanging to shoulder level.
➢ Stimuli will be flashing on the chaos collage, and the ribbons as well as the users.
➢ at about 30 seconds and the stimuli stops (audio and projection)
➢ immediately a host’s hand (can be gloved with bright colour maybe neon) protrudes through the slit in the curtain wall (~at chest height) and presents the user team with an origami cube made of translucent paper (tracing paper for ex.) with a word or phrase, topic written on the inside of the paper (which will show through the translucency), together with an audio “ding!” (i.e. with front desk bell)
➢ after the users take the cube from the host, the dividing curtain will be pulled back to reveal the second half of the room and make the room whole (the rest of the room will be mostly white, with projection on a white board)

Engagement [2]:
➢ host greets and introduces the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” (a place for collaboration, where senses are made from chaos, etc.)
➢ host instruct the users to “take the word, phrase, idea out of the box” “release the word out of the box” something to gently suggest “ think outside the box” with out giving it to them completely.
➢ The users then open the origami cube and read the word inside.
➢ The then Hosts introduces the activity.
Activity

Users have 2:30 minutes to collaborate and link the word, term or phrase on the origami paper with the word term or phrase written on the neon post-it note on the white board.
Note: We will brain storm in Sunday with some thought provoking words. And prepare some cubes and signs for the outside( the carrot). Juice it up so to speak. By expanding the rules to include phrases and terms we make the challenge more controversial. The psychology here is; people want a voice in these matters.

➢ host gestures towards the post-it pads and markers, and white board, indicating they are available for use in brain storming.
➢ the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” logo and a timer are now be projected on the board; once everything is introduced the timer will start counting down from 2:30 (minutes) (one person control projection; anyone from our class). Perhaps some audio begins, something that symbolizes space and clarity.
➢ the users are free to collaborate using post-its and whiteboard to complete one statement. They users write this statement on a post it note. The host is not involved in their thought process, but just facilitates with supplies and perhaps juggling paper cubes ({can anyone juggle?} Could this make the stakes seem higher… add a “don’t drop the ball”sense to the room and the activity ).
➢ The user team has now used up all their time.
➢ The host asks permission to take a photo of the group complete with the their collaboration and statement written in larger letters on the white board.
➢ The hosts also then ask if the users would like the photo emailed to them or, offer take photos for the users.
➢ Now the host asks the users to select 2 words, terms, topics or phrases that are not the same ones given to them at the onset of the challenge.The can use words that are, or are not taken from their final statement.

Note:
Here the host can encourage the users to raise the stakes by making the challenge more difficult, or thought provoking, and creative. They are through thought, linking two seemingly unrelated things. Which is the basis of all creative thinking ( according to Objects and Environments).

➢ The host then asks the user to circle the 2 words, terms, topics or phrases on their “statement post-it” if they are included as part of their statement. If the words aren’t in the statement, they can add them with marker, even linking post its together.(This allows the user to process the thought further).
➢ Having made their 2 selections, the users now write one thought on a neon“post it” and the second on a piece of translucent origami paper( just like they where presented with in the beginning of the challenge).
➢ The host wisks the piece of origami paper off into the hands of another exiting host.
➢ The host show the users the lineage of words being accumulated so far in the projection (with the users photos beside the words), users see themselves adding to the evolution of ideas; and host stick the post-it note with the statement to the wall with the growing collage of previous final statements.
➢ Another piece of neon paper with the same word is added to the group of words on paper, on the outside of the box.
➢ When this occurs, some twinkling audio magical, happy sound emits, just for length of the action, emphasizing the contribution.
➢ Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)
➢ The users exit; fighting amongst themselves for the little piece of origami paper, the lasting metaphor and memory of their contribution to “The “Chaortic Collabratorium”. Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)

Meanwhile, A second host folds the origami paper with the new word, term, topic or phrase for the next group. In fact, Everything resets, ready for the next group.

Activate User Scenario

Notes for:
Promo team
AV team
Props/Sets team
Hosts team

[Chaordic Collaboratorium]

Host note: overall “feel” or “style” is a bit like a show. With some flair. Not completely casual. The title itself is funky, “Collaboratorium”. It will be a performance.

Attraction:

The Set: A simple (white?)10’ x10’Box with 2 curtained entrances. Provocative words and phrases are written in black marker on 81/2 x 11 pieces of paper in neon colours (reflecting the post-its inside the experience).

➢ promo team
➢ A host greeter (wearing a t-shirt and nametag) suggests 3 to 5 people to go through the experience, “bring your friends!” “It’s a collaborating experience!” or group strangers into one (if the users are comfortable with it); think a bit like “circus”, coming into our tent! A little mystery, thought provoking maybe, fun, etc.

Maybe juggling, paper cubes…with words inside…
Entry:
➢ greeter pulls the outside curtain aside to reveal entrance and let user group in then close the curtain behind them, leaving them in the “chaos”
Engagement [1]:
➢ time based “chaos” experience, with audio and visual stimuli
➢ stimuli will be incoherent, stimuli includes: graphic collage on wall (prop set), projection of video towards user (AV), layered audio clips (AV)and 20pieces of ribbon staggered vertically( in length) in the space hanging to shoulder level.
➢ Stimuli will be flashing on the chaos collage, and the ribbons as well as the users.
➢ at about 30 seconds and the stimuli stops (audio and projection)
➢ immediately a host’s hand (can be gloved with bright colour maybe neon) protrudes through the slit in the curtain wall (~at chest height) and presents the user team with an origami cube made of translucent paper (tracing paper for ex.) with a word or phrase, topic written on the inside of the paper (which will show through the translucency), together with an audio “ding!” (i.e. with front desk bell)
➢ after the users take the cube from the host, the dividing curtain will be pulled back to reveal the second half of the room and make the room whole (the rest of the room will be mostly white, with projection on a white board)

Engagement [2]:
➢ host greets and introduces the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” (a place for collaboration, where senses are made from chaos, etc.)
➢ host instruct the users to “take the word, phrase, idea out of the box” “release the word out of the box” something to gently suggest “ think outside the box” with out giving it to them completely.
➢ The users then open the origami cube and read the word inside.
➢ The then Hosts introduces the activity.
Activity

Users have 2:30 minutes to collaborate and link the word, term or phrase on the origami paper with the word term or phrase written on the neon post-it note on the white board.
Note: We will brain storm in Sunday with some thought provoking words. And prepare some cubes and signs for the outside( the carrot). Juice it up so to speak. By expanding the rules to include phrases and terms we make the challenge more controversial. The psychology here is; people want a voice in these matters.

➢ host gestures towards the post-it pads and markers, and white board, indicating they are available for use in brain storming.
➢ the “Chaordic Collaboratorium” logo and a timer are now be projected on the board; once everything is introduced the timer will start counting down from 2:30 (minutes) (one person control projection; anyone from our class). Perhaps some audio begins, something that symbolizes space and clarity.
➢ the users are free to collaborate using post-its and whiteboard to complete one statement. They users write this statement on a post it note. The host is not involved in their thought process, but just facilitates with supplies and perhaps juggling paper cubes ({can anyone juggle?} Could this make the stakes seem higher… add a “don’t drop the ball”sense to the room and the activity ).
➢ The user team has now used up all their time.
➢ The host asks permission to take a photo of the group complete with the their collaboration and statement written in larger letters on the white board.
➢ The hosts also then ask if the users would like the photo emailed to them or, offer take photos for the users.
➢ Now the host asks the users to select 2 words, terms, topics or phrases that are not the same ones given to them at the onset of the challenge.The can use words that are, or are not taken from their final statement.

Note:
Here the host can encourage the users to raise the stakes by making the challenge more difficult, or thought provoking, and creative. They are through thought, linking two seemingly unrelated things. Which is the basis of all creative thinking ( according to Objects and Environments).

➢ The host then asks the user to circle the 2 words, terms, topics or phrases on their “statement post-it” if they are included as part of their statement. If the words aren’t in the statement, they can add them with marker, even linking post its together.(This allows the user to process the thought further).
➢ Having made their 2 selections, the users now write one thought on a neon“post it” and the second on a piece of translucent origami paper( just like they where presented with in the beginning of the challenge).
➢ The host wisks the piece of origami paper off into the hands of another exiting host.
➢ The host show the users the lineage of words being accumulated so far in the projection (with the users photos beside the words), users see themselves adding to the evolution of ideas; and host stick the post-it note with the statement to the wall with the growing collage of previous final statements.
➢ Another piece of neon paper with the same word is added to the group of words on paper, on the outside of the box.
➢ When this occurs, some twinkling audio magical, happy sound emits, just for length of the action, emphasizing the contribution.
➢ Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)
➢ The users exit; fighting amongst themselves for the little piece of origami paper, the lasting metaphor and memory of their contribution to “The “Chaortic Collabratorium”. Host provides cookies (I’m thinking Happy face.)

Meanwhile, A second host folds the origami paper with the new word, term, topic or phrase for the next group. In fact, Everything resets, ready for the next group.

Use of this service is governed by the IT Acceptable Use and Web Technologies policies.
Privacy Notice: It is possible for your name, e-mail address, and/or student/staff/faculty UserID to be publicly revealed if you choose to use OCAD University Blogs.