Soundscape brought research into physical interaction. I made alternative paper controls and proposed comparing them. The team used what we learned to reconsider Bluetooth, labels and feedback, moving toward direct interaction on the device.
- Key insight
- The first interaction needed clearer physical controls and less reliance on a phone.
- Team decision
- Remove Bluetooth, clarify modes and playback, then revisit reset and QR access in context.
- Outcome / status
- Comparative paper tests, physical prototypes and a concept demonstration. No public installation or measured safety benefit.
What I contributed
- Participated from initial concept selection and mind mapping
- Originated the idea of comparing alternative controls through A/B testing
- Created both paper prototypes and comparison materials
- Developed the initial control approach, user flow and storyboard
- Supported research as a note-taker and interviewer
- Created later Blender modeling
- Contributed to each major presentation and the final pitch
Methods & making
Team course project in partnership with the Workforce Planning Board. Individual contributions are described separately from collective work.
The question worth asking
How could an unfamiliar public device feel understandable and welcoming without asking someone to connect a phone first? The team explored ambient audio and local storytelling as a response to nighttime discomfort in downtown Brantford.
Before the device, six possible directions.
The team considered a shuttle, secure belongings, a safety hub, an app, a crime map and a music-based intervention.
We developed the public audio direction after exploring alternatives and feedback.
My contribution: early idea selection, concept development and active participation in mindmapping.
Comfort became a design question.
The discovery presentation records five semi-structured interviews, a night field study and a literature review. Empty streets, isolation and sound levels shaped the question: could audio create a sense of presence without adding another source of discomfort?
My contribution: note-taking, support interviews and research participation with community and stakeholder groups.
Five refers to discovery interviews only. Later comparative and contextual sample sizes are not established; no improvement in safety is claimed.
Two ways to say “play”
I proposed the comparison and made both paper control alternatives. This was formative comparative testing, not a statistically controlled A/B experiment.
One knob
Rotate to browse. Press to confirm. The first control concept concentrated actions into a single knob.
The comparison started with paper.
I proposed this formative comparison and created both alternatives. The team’s summary records a preference for A, alongside confusion about labels, instructions, modes and Bluetooth.
Prototype A
Rotation browsed content; pressing the same knob confirmed the choice.
Original paper prototype A, created by Evelyn.Compare how people interpret an integrated control.
My work: paper prototype and testing materials.
The slides call this A/B testing. No randomized design, sample size or preference percentage is documented.
Map the whole encounter.
These early artifacts retain QR and Bluetooth routes that were later removed.
User flow
The proposed sequence connects approaching the device with content choice, playback and reset.
Original early user flow by Evelyn; QR/Bluetooth identify an earlier concept stage.Make the role of each control explicit enough to discuss and prototype.
My work: user flow.
Why Bluetooth left the device
A possibility
Bluetooth was part of the early control concept: another way to access audio.
Connect a phone
I originated the comparative testing idea and supported research. The final decision was collective.
My work: I proposed the comparison, created both paper prototypes and comparison materials, and supported the research. The removal decision was collective.
Give the next action a visible sequence.
The physical prototype added an instruction board, familiar media symbols and separate content labels. QR was still present at this stage.
The board and symbols addressed missing guidance and mode confusion from the paper comparison.
Team artifact: physical construction and revisions were collective. My initial controls and research supported this direction.
The surroundings exposed another layer.
Noise affected intelligibility, restart was confusing, and QR was not used in the documented contextual work. Later notes also mention accidental touches and weak nighttime visibility.
The team removed QR, distinguished reset from playback, and revisited control size, contrast and guidance.
My contribution: research support, note-taking and presentation participation.
The team reported clearer play/pause understanding. The sources do not establish a follow-up success rate.
From control logic to physical form.
Braille, tactile labels, contrast and visual feedback are design intentions requiring physical validation.
Blender model
The original model brings the instruction board, media control and content buttons into one physical composition.
Original Blender concept render by Evelyn; recovered from the supplied model archive. Not an installation.Use a detailed model to communicate form and interaction intent.
My work: Blender modeling and pitch participation.
Give each action a place.
The detailed model made the control hierarchy concrete: playback in one group, content modes in another, and restart away from the main interaction. These are visual design intentions, to be evaluated with physical prototypes.
Playback
The large center identifies play/pause; related playback adjustments sit around it.
Original Blender concept detail. Raised symbols and contrast communicate the intended control hierarchy.Group the controls used repeatedly during listening.
My work: Blender modeling, building on my initial control approach.
The renders show proposed form and labeling. They do not establish Braille accuracy, tactile usability, outdoor durability or battery life.
Try the Soundscape prototype
An adapted version of the supplied interactive HTML. My confirmed work includes the paper controls, user flow and Blender modeling; authorship of the original HTML is not established as mine.
Pick it up.
Without picking it up.
Rotate the model. Try the controls. Explore its feedback.
Concept demonstration · no recording or microphone accessWhat came out of it
A researched concept developed through paper controls, successive prototypes, a Blender visualization and a team pitch.
What this work does—and doesn’t—show
The device was not deployed in the depicted environment. The research does not establish improved public safety or universal accessibility. Audio levels, outdoor performance and accessibility still require further evaluation. The supplied HTML demonstration is a team project artifact; its authorship has not been established as Evelyn's.
What I’d do next
I would test first-use discovery in low light, intelligibility in traffic noise, accidental presses, and the distinction between reset and playback. I would review tactile spacing and Braille with appropriate users and specialists, then evaluate how any real city-information or recording workflow should operate. The concept demonstration does not answer those physical and public-use questions.