Lately I have been binging on books, presentations and articles related to ‘Lean UX’. I don’t like the term, but then I don’t like the tech industry’s love for inventing a new label for every damn thing. I do like the things emphasises: shared understanding, deep collaboration, continuous user feedback. These are principles that have always implicitly guided the choices I made when leading teams at Hubbub and now also as a member of several teams in the role of product designer.
In all these lean UX readings a thing that keeps coming up again and again is prototyping. Prototypes are the go-to way of doing ‘experiments’, in lean-speak. Other things can be done as well—surveys, interviews, whatever—but more often than not, assumptions are tested with prototypes.
Which is great! And also unsurprising as prototyping has really been embraced by the tech world. And tools for rapid prototyping are getting a lot of attention and interest as a result. However, this comes with a couple of risks. For one, sometimes it is fine to stick to paper. But the lure of shiny prototyping tools is strong. You’d rather not show a crappy drawing to a user. What if they hate it? However, high fidelity prototyping is always more costly than paper. So although well-intentioned, prototyping tools can encourage wastefulness, the bane of lean.
There is a bigger danger which runs against the lean ethos, though. Some tools afford deep collaboration more than others. Let’s be real: none afford deeper collaboration than paper and whiteboards. There is one person behind the controls when prototyping with a tool. So in my view, one should only ever progress to that step once a team effort has been made to hash out the rough outlines of what is to be prototyped. Basically: always paper prototype the digital prototype. Together.
I have had a lot of fun lately playing with browser prototypes and with prototyping in Framer. But as I was getting back into all of this I did notice this risk: All of a sudden there is a person on the team who does the prototypes. Unless this solo prototyping is preceded by shared prototyping, this is a problem. Because the rest of the team is left out of the thinking-through-making which makes the prototyping process so valuable in addition to the testable artefacts it outputs.
It is I think a key oversight of the ‘should designers code’ debaters and to an extent one made by all prototyping tool manufacturers: Individuals don’t prototype, teams do. Prototyping is a team sport. And so the success of a tool depends not only on how well it supports individual prototyping activities but also how well it embeds itself in collaborative workflows.
In addition to the tools themselves getting better at supporting collaborative workflows, I would also love to see more tutorials, both official and from the community, about how to use a prototyping tool within the larger context of a team doing some form of agile. Most tutorials now focus on “how do I make this thing with this tool”. Useful, up to a point. But a large part of prototyping is to arrive at “the thing” together.
One of the lean UX things I devoured was this presentation by Bill Scott in which he talks about aligning a prototyping and a development tech stack, so that the gap between design and engineering is bridged not just with processes but also with tooling. His example applies to web development and app development using web technologies. I wonder what a similar approach looks like for native mobile app development. But this is the sort of thing I am talking about: Smart thinking about how to actually do this lean thing in the real world. I believe organising ourselves so that we can prototype as a team is absolutely key. I will pick my tools and processes accordingly in future.
All of the above is as usual mostly a reminder to self: As a designer your role is not to go off and work solo on brilliant prototypes. Your role is to facilitate such efforts by the whole team. Sure, there will be solo deep designerly crafting happening. But it will not add up to anything if it is not embedded in a collaborative design and development framework.
When you are designing a web site or web app I think you should prototype in the browser. Why? You might as well ask why prototype at all. Answer: To enable continuous testing and refinement of your design. Since you are designing for the web it makes sense to do this testing and refinement with an artefact composed of the web’s material.
There are many ways to do prototyping. A common way is to make wireframes and then make them ‘clickable’. But when I am designing a web site or a web app and I get to the point where it is time to do wireframes I often prefer to go straight to the browser.
Before this step I have sketched out all the screens on paper of course. I have done multiple sketches of each page. I’ve had them critiqued by team members and I have reworked them.
Drawing pictures of web pages
But then I open my drawing program—Sketch, in my case—and my heart sinks. Not because Sketch sucks. Sketch is great. But it somehow feels wrong to draw pictures of web pages on my screen. I find it cumbersome. My drawing program does not behave like a browser. That is to say in stead of defining a bunch of rules for elements and having the browser figure out how to render them on a page together I need to follow those rules myself in my head as I put each element in its place.
And don’t get me started on how wireframes are supposed to be without visual design. That is nonsense. If you are using contrast, repetition, alignment and proximity, you are doing layout. That is visual design. I can’t stand wireframes with a bad visual hierarchy.
If I persevere, and I have a set of wireframes in my drawing program, they are static. I can’t use them. I then need to export them to some other often clunky program to make the pictures clickable. Which always results in a poor resemblance of the actual experience. (I use Marvel. It’s okay but it is hardly a joy to use. For mobile apps I still use it, for web sites I prefer not to.)
Prototyping in the browser
When I prototype in the browser I don’t have to deal with these issues. I am doing layout in a way that is native to the medium. And once I have some pages set up they are immediately usable. So I can hand it to someone, a team member or a test participant, and let them play with it.
That is why, for web sites and web apps, I skip wireframes altogether and prototype in the browser. I do not know how common this is in the industry nowadays. So I thought I would share my approach here. It may be of use to some.
It used to be the case that it was quite a bit of hassle to get up and running with a browser prototype so naturally opening a drawing package seemed more attractive. Not so anymore. Tools have come a long way. Case in point: My setup nowadays involves zero screwing around on the command line.
The core of it is a paid-for Mac app called CodeKit, a so-called task manager. It allows you to install a front-end development framework I like called Zurb Foundation with a couple of clicks and has a built in web server so you can play with your prototype on any device on your local network. As you make changes to the code of your prototype it gets automatically updated on all your devices. No more manual refreshing. Saves a huge amount of time.
I know you can do most of what CodeKit does for you with stuff like Grunt but that involves tedious configuration and working the command line. This is fine when you’re a developer, but not fine when you are a designer. I want to be up and running as fast as possible. CodeKit allows me to do that and has some other features built in that are ideal for prototyping which I will talk about more below. Long story short: CodeKit has saved me a huge amount of time and is well worth the money.
Okay so on with the show. Yes, this whole prototyping in the browser thing involves ‘coding’. But honestly, if you can’t write some HTML and CSS you really shouldn’t be doing design for the web in the first place. I don’t care if you consider yourself a UX designer and somehow above all this lowly technical stuff. You are not. Nobody is saying you should become a frontend developer but you need to have an acquaintance with the materials your product is made of. Follow a few courses on Codecadamy or something. There really isn’t an excuse anymore these days for not knowing this stuff. If you want to level up, learn SASS.
I like Zurb Foundation because it offers a coherent and comprehensive library of elements which covers almost all the common patterns found in web sites and apps. It offers a grid and some default typography styles as well. All of it doesn’t look flashy at all which is how I like it when I am prototyping. A prototype at this stage does not require personality yet. Just a clear visual hierarchy. Working with Foundation is almost like playing with LEGO. You just click together the stuff you need. It’s painless and looks and works great.
I hardly do any styling but the few changes I do want to make I can easily add to Foundation’s app.scss using SASS. I usually have a few styles in there for tweaking some margins on particular elements, for example a footer. But I try to focus on the structure and behaviour of my pages and for that I am mostly doing HTML.
Testing locally I already mentioned. For that, CodeKit has you covered. Of course, you want to be able to share your prototype with others. For this I like to use GitHub and their Pages feature. Once again, using their desktop client, this involves zero command line work. You just add the folder with your CodeKit project as a new repository and sync it with GitHub. Then you need to add a branch named ‘gh-pages’ and do ‘update from master’. Presto, your prototype is now on the web for anyone with the URL to see and use. Perfect if you’re working in a distributed team.
Don’t be intimidated by using GitHub. Their on-boarding is pretty impressive nowadays. You’ll be up and running in no time. Using version control, even if it is just you working on the prototype, adds some much needed structure and control over changes. And when you are collaborating on your prototype with team members it is indispensable.
But in most cases I am the only one building the prototype so I just work on the master branch and once every while I update the gh-pages branch from master and sync it and I am done. If you use Slack you can add a GitHub bot to a channel and have your team members receive an automatic update every time you change the prototype.
The Kit Language
If your project is of any size beyond the very small you will likely have repeating elements in your design. Headers, footers, recurring widgets and so on. CodeKit has recently added support for something called the Kit Language. This adds support for imports and variables to regular HTML. It is absolutely great for prototyping. For each repeating element you create a ‘partial’ and import it wherever you need it. Variables are great for changing the contents of such repeating elements. CodeKit compiles it all into plain static HTML for you so your prototype runs anywhere.
The Kit Language really was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. With it in place I am very comfortable recommending this way of working to anyone.
So that’s my setup: CodeKit, Zurb Foundation and GitHub. Together they make for a very pleasant and productive way to do prototyping in the browser. I don’t imagine myself going back to drawing pictures of web pages anytime soon.
Last year at Hubbub we worked on two projects featuring a conversational user interface. I thought I would share a few notes on how we did the writing for them. Because for conversational user interfaces a large part of the design is in the writing.
At the moment, there aren’t really that many tools well suited for doing this. Twine comes to mind but it is really more focused on publishing as opposed to authoring. So while we were working on these projects we just grabbed whatever we were familiar with and felt would get the job done.
I actually think there is an opportunity here. If this conversational ui thing takes off designers would benefit a lot from better tools to sketch and prototype them. After all this is the only way to figure out if a conversational user interface is suitable for a particular project. In the words of Bill Buxton:
“Everything is best for something and worst for something else.”
Okay so below are my notes. The two projects are KOKORO (a codename) and Free Birds. We have yet to publish extensively on both, so a quick description is in order.
For KOKORO we used Gingko to write the conversation branches. This is good enough for a prototype but it becomes unwieldy at scale. And anyway you don’t want to be limited to a tree structure. You want to at least be able to loop back to a parent branch, something that isn’t supported by Gingko. And maybe you don’t want to use the branching pattern at all.
Free Birds’s story has a very linear structure. So in this case we just wrote our conversations in Quip with some basic rules for formatting, not unlike a screenplay.
In Free Birds player choices ‘colour’ the events that come immediately after, but the path stays the same.
KOKORO’s choices did have to lead to different paths so we had to build a tree structure. But we also kept track of things a user says. This allows the app to “learn” about the user. Subsequent segments of the conversation are adapted based on this learning. This allows for more flexibility and it scales better. A section of a conversation has various states between which we switch depending on what a user has said in the past.
We did something similar in Free Birds but used it to a far more limited degree, really just to once again colour certain pieces of dialogue. This is already enough to give a player a sense of agency.
As you can see, it’s all far from rocket surgery but you can get surprisingly good results just by sticking to these simple patterns. If I were to investigate more advanced strategies I would look into NLP for input and procedural generation for output. Who knows, maybe I will get to work on a project involving those things some time in the future.
In Digital Ground Malcolm McCullough talks about how tuning is a central part of interaction design practice. How part of the challenge of any project is to get to a point where you can start tweaking the variables that determine the behaviour of your interface for the best feel.
“Feel” is a word I borrow from game design. There is a book on it by Steve Swink. It is a funny term. We are trying to simulate sensations that are derived from the physical realm. We are trying to make things that are purely visual behave in such a way that they evoke these sensations. There are many games that heavily depend on getting feel right. Basically all games that are built on a physics simulation of some kind require good feel for a good player experience to emerge.
Physics simulations have been finding their way into non-game software products for some time now and they are becoming an increasing part of what makes a product, er, feel great. They are often at the foundation of signature moments that set a product apart from the pack. These signature moments are also known as microinteractions. To get them just right, being able to tune well is very important.
The behaviour of microinteractions based on physics simulations is determined by variables. For example, the feel of a spring is determined by the mass of the weight attached to the spring, the spring’s stiffness and the friction that resists the motion of the weight. These variables interact in ways that are hard to model in your head so you need to make repeated changes to each variable and try the simulation to get it just right. This is time-consuming, cumbersome and resists the easy exploration of alternatives essential to a good design process.
In The Setup game designer Bennett Foddy talks about a way to improve on this workflow. Many of his games (if not all of them) are playable physics simulations with punishingly hard controls. He suggests using a hardware interface (a MIDI controller) to tune the variables that determine the feel of his game while it runs. In this way the loop between changing a variable and seeing its effect in game is dramatically shortened and many different combinations of values can be explored easily. Once a satisfactory set of values for the variables has been found they can be written back to the software for future use.
I do believe such a setup is still non-trivial to make work with todays tools. A quick check verifies that Framer does not have OSC support, for example. There is an opportunity here for prototyping environments such as Framer and others to support it. The approach is not limited to motion-based microinteractions but can be extended to the tuning of variables that control other aspects of an app’s behaviour.
For example, when we were making Standing, we would have benefited hugely from hardware controls to tweak the sensitivity of its motion-sensing functions as we were using the app. We were forced to do it by repeatedly changing numbers in the code and building the app again and again. It was quite a pain to get right. To this day I have the feeling we could have made it better if only we would have had the tools to do it.
Judging from snafus such as the poor feel of the latest Twitter desktop client, there is a real need for better tools for tuning microinteractions. Just like pen tablets have become indispensable for those designing the form of user interfaces on screens. I think we might soon find a small set of hardware knobs on the desks of those designers working on the behaviour of user interfaces.
I am preparing two classes at the moment. One is an introduction to user experience design, the other to user interface design. I did not come up with this division, it was part of the assignment. I thought it was odd at first. I wasn’t sure where one discipline ends and the other begins. I still am not sure. But I made a pragmatic decision to have the UX class focus on the high level process of designing (software) products, and the UI class focus on the visual aspects of a product’s interface. The UI class deals with a product’s surface, form, and to some extent also its behaviour, but on a micro level. Whereas the UX class focuses on behaviour on the macro level. Simply speaking—the UX class is about behaviour across screens, the UI class is about behaviour within screens.
The solution is workable. But I am still not entirely comfortable with it. I am not comfortable with the idea of being able to practice UX without ‘touching the surface’, so to speak. And it seems my two classes are advocating this. Also, I am pretty sure this is everyday reality for many UX practitioners. Notice I say “practitioner”, because I am not sure ‘designer’ is the right term in these cases. To be honest I do not think you can practice design without doing sketching and prototyping of some sort. (See Bill Buxton’s ‘Sketching User Experiences’ for an expanded argument on why this is.) And when it comes to designing software products this means touching the surface, the form.
Again, the reality is, ‘UX designer’ and ‘UI designer’ are common terms now. Certainly here in Singapore people know they need both to make good products. Some practitioners say they do both, others one or the other. The latter appears to be the most common and expected case. (By the way, in Singapore no-one I’ve met talks about interaction design.)
My concern is that by encouraging the practice of doing UX design without touching the surface of a product, we get shitty designs. In a process where UX and UI are seen as separate things the risk is one comes before the other. The UX designer draws the wireframes, the UI designer gets to turn them into pretty pictures, with no back-and-forth between the two. An iterative process can mitigate some of the damage such an artificial division of labour produces, but I think we still start out on the wrong foot. I think a better practice might entail including visual considerations from the very beginning of the design process (as we are sketching).
Two things I came across as I was preparing these classes are somehow in support of this idea. Both resulted from a call I did for resources on user interface design. I asked for books about visual aspects, but I got a lot more.
In ‘Magic Ink’ Bret Victor writes about how the design of information software is hugely indebted to graphic design and more specifically information design in the tradition of Tufte. (He also mentions industrial design as an equally big progenitor of interaction design, but for software that is mainly about manipulation, not information.) The article is big, but the start of it is actually a pretty good if unorthodox general introduction to interaction design. For software that is about learning through looking at information Victor says interaction should be a last resort. So that leaves us with a task that is 80% if not more visual design. Touching the surface. Which makes me think you might as well get to it as quickly as possible and start sketching and prototyping aimed not just at structure and behaviour but also form. (Hat tip to Pieter Diepenmaat for this one.)
In ‘Jumping to the End’ Matt Jones rambles entertainingly about design fiction. He argues for paying attention to details and that a lot of the design he practices is about ‘signature moments’ aka micro-interactions. So yeah, again, I can’t imagine designing these effectively without doing sketching and prototyping of the sort that includes the visual. And in fact Matt mentions this more or less at one point, when he talks about the fact that his team’s deliverables at Google are almost all visual. They are high fidelity mockups, animations, videos, and so on. These then become the starting points for further development. (Hat tip to Alexander Zeh for this one.)
In summary, I think distinguishing UX design from UI design is nonsense. Because you cannot practice design without sketching and prototyping. And you cannot sketch and prototype a software product without touching its surface. In stead of taking visual design for granted, or talking about it like it is some innate talent, some kind of magical skill some people are born with and others aren’t, user experience practitioners should consider being less enamoured with acquiring more skills from business, marketing and engineering and in stead practice at the skills that define the fields user experience design is indebted to the most: graphic design and industrial design. In other words, you can’t do user experience design without touching the surface.
…and run around with lunch-boxes on their heads.1
This was all part of a workshop I ran, titled ‘Playful Tinkering’. The mysterious Mink ette — who amongst many things is a designer at Six to Start — and I got people to rapidly prototype pervasive games that were be played at the conference venue the day after. The best game won a magnificent trophy shaped like a spring rider.
Some exercises we did during the workshop:
Play a name game Mink ette had made up shortly before the workshop in no time at all. This is good for several things: physical warm-up, breaking the ice, demonstrate the kinds of games the session is about.
Walk around the room and write down imaginary game titles as well as names of games you used to play as a child. Good for emptying heads and warming up mentally.
Walk around again, pick a post-it that intrigues you. Then guess what the game is about, and have others to fill in the blanks where need. Then play the game. This is mostly just for fun. (Nothing wrong with that.)
Analyse the games, break them up into their basic parts. Change one of those parts and play the game again. See what effect the change has. This is to get a sense of what games design is about, and how changing a rule impacts the player experience.
Participants brainstorming game ideas
People then formed groups and worked on an original game. We pushed them to rapidly generate a first ruleset that could be playtested with the other groups. After this they did another design sprint, and playtested again outside the room, “in the wild”. All of this in less than four hours. Whew!
The games that were made:
A game that involved hunting for people that matched the descriptions on post-its that were hidden around the venue. You first needed to find a post-it, then find the person that matched the description on it and finally take a photo of them for points. This game was so quick to play it already ran at the party, hours after the workshop finished.
‘Crowd Control’ — compete with other players to get the largest percentage of a group of people to do what you are doing (like nodding your head). This game won the trophy, in part because of the ferocious player recruitment style the runners employed during the playtest.
A sailing game, where you tried to maneuver an imaginary boat from one end of a space to the other. Your movement was constrained by the “wind”, which was a function of the amount of people on either side of your boat. It featured an ingenuous measuring mechanic which used an improvised rope made from a torn up conference tote bag.
The lunchbox thing was improvised during the lunch before the playtest. A student also brought in a game he was working on for his graduation to playtest.
We set up the playtest itself as follows:
The room was open to anyone passing by. Each game got their own station where they could recruit players, explain the rules, keep score, etc. Mink ette and I handed each player a red, blue and yellow tiddlywink. They could use this to vote on their favorite game in three separate categories, by handing the runners a tiddlywink. People could play more than once, and vote as often as they liked. We also kept track of how much players each game got. We handed out prizes to winners in the different categories (a lucky dip box loaded with piñata fillers). The most played game got the grand prize — the spring rider trophy I created with help from my sister and fabricated at the local fablab.2
Spring rider trophy and tiddlywinks ready for some playtesting action
It was a pleasure to have the elusive Mink ette over for the ride. I loved the way she explained what pervasive games were all about — being able to play anytime, anywhere with anything. I was also impressed with the way she managed to get people to do strange things without thinking twice.
We had a very dedicated group of participants, most of whom stuck around for the whole session and returned again for the playtest the next day. I’m very grateful for their enthusiasm. The whole experience was very rewarding, I’m keen on doing this more often at events and applying what I learnt to the workshops I run as part of my own games design practice.
Happy winners of the spring rider trophy flanked by Mink ette and yours truly
Subscribers to my Flickr stream have probably noticed a number of images of some kind of map flowing past lately. They were the result of me tracking my progress on a pet project. I have more or less finished work on it this week, so I thought I’d detail what I did over here.
Following my Twitter dataviz sketches, I thought I’d take another stab at prototyping with Processing. On the one hand I wanted to increase my familiarity with the environment. On the other, I continued to be fascinated with data-visualization, so I wanted to do another design exercise in this domain. I was particularly interested in creating displays that assist in decision making and present data in a way that allows people to ‘play’ with it — explore it and learn from it.
The seed for this thing was planted when I saw Stamen’s work on the mySociety travel-time maps. I thought the idea of visually overlaying two datasets and allowing the intersection to be manipulated by people was simple but powerful. But, at that time, I saw no way to ‘easily’ try my hand at something similar. I had no ready access to any potentially interesting data, and my scraping skills are limited at best.
Luckily, I was not the only one whose curiosity was piqued. After seeing Ben Cerveny demoing the same maps at The Web and Beyond 2008, Alper wondered how hard it would be to create something similar for the Netherlands. He presented a way to do it with freely available tools and data (to an extent) in a workshop at a local unconference.1
I did not attend the event, but after seeing his blog post, I sent him an email and asked if he was willing to part with the data he had collected from the Dutch public transport travel planning site 9292. Alper being the nice guy he is, he soon emailed me a JSON containing of the data.
So that’s the background. I had an example, I had some data, and I had a little experience with making things in Processing.
The first step was to read the data in the JSON file from Processing. I followed the instructions on how to get the JSON library into Processing from Ben Fry’s book (pages 315–316). On the Processing boards, a cursory search unearthed some code examples. After a little fiddling, I got it to work and could print the data to Processing’s console.
Next up was to start visualizing it. I used the examples of scatterplot maps in Visualizing Data as a starting point, and plugged in the JSON data. Pretty soon, I had a nice plot of the postal codes that actually resembled the Netherlands.
From there, it was rather easy to show each postal code’s travel time.2 I simply mapped travel times to a hue in the HSB spectrum. The result nicely shows colored bands of travel-time regions and also allows you to pick out some interesting outliers (such as Groningen in the north).
At this point, I wanted to be able to select travel-time ranges and hide postal codes outside of that range. Initially, I used the keyboard for input. This was OK for this stage of the project, but of course it would need to be replaced with something more intuitive later on. In any case, I could highlight selected points and dim others, which increased the display’s explorability considerably.
The HSB spectrum is quick and easy way of getting access to a full a range of colors. It served me well in my Twitter visualizations. However in this case it left something to be desired, aesthetically speaking. Via Tom Carden I found the wonderful cpt-city, which catalogues gradients for cartography and the like. Initially I struggled with ways to get these colors into Processing, but then it turned out you could easily read out the colors of pixels from images. This allowed me to cycle through many palettes just by adding the files to my Processing sketch. I discovered that a palette with a clear division in the middle was best, because that provides you with an extra reference point besides the beginning and end.
I next turned to the interaction bits. I knew I wanted a so-called dual slider that would allow people to select the upper and lower limit of travel time. In the Processing book, there is code for plenty of interface widgets, but sadly no dual slider. I looked around on the Processing board and could find none either, to my surprise. Even in the UI libraries (such as controlP5 and Interfascia) I could not locate one.
So I decided to lower the bar and first include two horizontal sliders, one for the upper and one for the lower limit. These I made using the code on pages 448–452 of the Processing book. Not perfect, but an improvement over the keyboard controls.
Selecting, yet again
Next, I decided I’d see if I could modify the code of the horizontal scrollbar so that I would end up with a dual slider. After some messing about (which did increase my understanding of the original code considerably) I managed to get it to work. This was an unexpected success. I now had a decent dual slider.
So far there was no way of telling which point corresponded to which postal code. So, I added a rollover that displayed the postal code’s name and travel time. At this point it became clear the data wasn’t perfect — some postal codes were erroneously geocoded by GeoNames. For instance, code 9843 (which is Grijpskerk, 199 minutes to the Dam) was placed on the map as Amsterdam Noord-Oost!
Adding more data
Around this point I visited Alper in Delft and we discussed adding a second dataset. Although housing prices à la mySociety would have been interesting, we decided to take a different route and add a second travel-time set for cars.3 My first step in integrating this was to simply generate a map each for the public transport and car travel data and manually juxtapose them. What I liked about this was that even though you know intuitively that traveling by car is faster, the two maps next to each other provide a dramatic visual confirmation of this piece of knowledge.
Moving ahead with the extra data, I started to struggle with how to represent both travel times. My first effort was to draw two sets of dots on top of each other (one for car travel times and one for public transport) and color each accordingly. For each set I introduced a separate slider. I wasn’t very satisfied with the result of this. It did not help in understanding what was going on that much.
After discussions with Alper and several other people, I decided it would make more sense to show the difference between travel times. So I calculated the percentage difference between public transport and car travel time for each postal code. This value I mapped to a color. Here, a simple gradient worked better than the palettes used earlier for travel times.
I also discarded the idea of having two dual sliders and simply went with one travel time selector. Although more user-friendly, it created a new problem: for some points both travel times would fall within the selected range, and for others one or the other. So I needed an extra visual dimension to show this. This turned out to be the greatest challenge.
After trying many approaches, I eventually settled on using the shape of the point to show which travel times fell within the range. A small dot meant that only the public transport travel time is within the range, a donut means only the car travel time is selected, and a big dot represents selection of both times.
Around this point I felt that it was time to wrap up. I had learnt about all I could from the exercise and any extra time spent on the project would result in marginal improvements at best. I added a legend for both the shapes and color, improved the legibility of the rollover and increased the visual affordance of the slider, and that was it.
It is becoming apparent to me that the act of building displays like this is playful in its own way. Through sketching in code, you can have something like a conversation with the data and get a sense of what’s there. Perhaps the end result is merely a byproduct of this process?
I’m amazed at how far a novice programmer like myself, with a dramatic lack of affinity for anything related to mathematics or physics, can get by simply modifying, augmenting and combining code that is already out there. I have no ambition whatsoever of becoming a professional developer of production-quality code. But building a collection bits and pieces of code that can do useful and interesting things seems like a good strategy for any designer. I am learning to trust my innate reluctance to code stuff from scratch.
Also, isn’t it cool that it is becoming increasingly feasible for regular citizens to start analyzing data that is — or at least should be — publicly available? Government still has a long way to go. Why do we need to go through the painstaking process of scraping this data from sources such as 9292 which for all intents and purposes is a public service?4
I will probably make the final prototype available online at some point in the future. For now, if you have any questions or comments I would love to hear them here, or via email.
Last sunday I sat down and coded a prototype of a casual game in Mobile Processing. I got the idea for it the evening before: You’re a bee who needs to collect as much honey as possible in his hive while at the same time keeping a flower-bed blooming by pollinating… Play it and let me know what your high score is in the comments!
Thinking and making
I’ve been looking for an excuse to get some experience with Processing (particularly the variant suitable for developing mobile stuff) for a while. I also felt I needed to get back into the making part of the field I’ve been thinking about so much lately: Game Design. I agree with Saffer, Webb and others — making is an important part of the design practice, it cannot be replaced by lots of thinking. The things learnt from engaging with the actual stuff things are made of (which in the case of digital games is code) aren’t gained in any other way and very valuable.
Get the game
I’ve uploaded the first version of the game here. You can play it in the emulator in your browser or if your phone runs Java midlets, download the file and play it like you’re supposed to: While out and about. The source code is provided as well, if you feel like looking at it.1
How to play
You’re the yellow oval. The orange triangle in the top left corner is your hive. Green squares are grass, brown squares are seeds, red squares are flowers and pink squares are pollinated flowers. The field is updated in columns from left to right (indicated by the yellow marker in the bottom). A seed will turn into a flower (in rare cases a pollinated flower). A flower will die, a pollinated flower will die and spread seeds to grass around it. Move your bee with the directional keys, use the centre key to grab nectar from a flower. You can cary a maximum of 100 nectar. Drop your nectar off at the hive (again using the centre key) to up your score. When you first grab nectar from a pollinated flower and subsequently from a normal flower, the latter is pollinated. Try to keep the flower-bed in bloom while at the same time racking up a high-score!
You’ll get 10 nectar from a flower (in bloom or not). Pollinating a flower costs 5 nectar. If you try to take nectar more than once from the same flower, you’ll loose 10 nectar.2
Stuff not in here that I might put into a next version (whenever I get around to it):
Animation — I need to get my feet wet with some scripted animation. Thing is I’ve always sucked at this. For now it’s all tile-based stuff.
Better feedback — For instance show the points you earn near the bee and the hive. I think that’ll make the game a lot easier to understand and therefore more fun.
Menus, pause, game over — It’s a prototype, so you get dumped into the action right away. (The game starts on the first key you press.) And there’s no actual game over message, the field just turns green and you’re left to wonder what to do.
Balance — I’m not sure if the game like it stands is balanced right, I will need to play it a lot to figure that out. Also there’s probably a dominant strategy that’ll let you rack up points easily.
The aim was to create a relatively casual game experience that will almost allow you to zone out while playing. I think it is far too twitchy now, so perhaps I really should sit down and do a second version sometime soon.
I enjoy working with Mobile Processing. I like the way it allows you to program in a very naive way but if you like structure things in a more sophisticated fashion. It really does allow you to sketch in code, which is exactly what I need. The emphasis on just code also prevents me from fiddling around with animations, graphics and so on (like I would in Flash for instance.) Perhaps the only thing that would be nice is an editor that is a bit more full-featured.3 Perhaps I should grab an external editor next time?
If you played the game and liked it (or thought it was too hard, boring or whatever) I’d love to get your feedback in the comments. Anyone else out there prototyping games in Processing? Or using it to teach game design? I’d be very interested to hear about it.
Not that it’s particularly good, I’m an amateur coder at best. [↩]
I’m not sure this is the right kind of negative reinforcement. [↩]
The automatic code formatting refused to work for me, requiring me to spend a bit too much effort on formatting by hand. [↩]