JINBLOG

Design fiction is increasingly prevalent in various design studies. While practitioners who advocate for design fiction and speculative design may not be at odds, they express their inclinations through their choice of words. This trend raises questions: Is it about integration, disappearance, or both? According to Dr Lindley, disappearance could represent a utopian future where speculative design seamlessly integrates into everyday life, turning critique and imagination into routine skills for handling daily affairs.
The emphasis in educational outreach is on the importance of practice over further defining and clarifying boundaries. Although speculative design’s definition remains somewhat ambiguous—possibly to allow for more possibilities and uncertainties—defining clear boundaries might not aid in practice. Thus, tolerating the ambiguity of boundaries and definitions while providing a navigable model can better disseminate practices like speculative design and create more potential futures.

I have tried distinguishing between speculative design and design fiction as much as possible. Clarifying misconceptions allows each methodology to become more comprehensive and multidimensional. For instance, design fiction is not merely about writing and storytelling. This process makes the two fields more convergent, with speculative design’s unique features also applicable to design fiction, albeit without a clear theoretical derivation process. However, if I had to pinpoint the most apparent distinction between speculative design and design fiction, design fiction emphasizes realism. Projects presented in Julian Bleeker’s blog seem to be happening right around us, at least visually, without causing shock or appearing absurd. From this perspective, design fiction focuses more on narrative, with realism being a byproduct. Speculative design, on the other hand, often includes bizarre products and scenarios, ominous atmospheres, and strange cities. While speculative design might encompass design fiction from a realism standpoint, the question remains whether design fiction can include speculative design, especially since speculative design often emphasises science and technology.

Regardless of whether integration occurs, concepts like speculative design and design fiction will have their unique roles in different contexts. Dr. Lindley also mentioned the challenges of a new “Enlightenment” in today’s and future environments, including the trivialization by capital and media complexities. This reminds me of design thinking, which may have faded among designers due to capital’s dominance and its origins in commercial design. Design thinking, established in the 1970s and 1980s and popularized in the 1990s, was initially limited to the design community. Its integration and interdisciplinary application began only about a decade ago. Speculative design’s theoretical framework, though about 30 years younger than design thinking, has entered a cross-disciplinary integration and fusion phase. Both design thinking and speculative design face criticism in the business world for lacking evaluative standards and tools. However, this criticism contradicts the essence of speculative design, which thrives on uncertainty and the discussions it sparks. Therefore, speculative design may not need quantitative evaluative standards or commercial assessments.

Speculative design originated from research in interaction, experience, and interaction design. The current popular dissemination environments (galleries, museums, and academies) provide a protective setting for the field. Some scholars believe the next step for speculative design’s dissemination might involve evolving the gallery concept, potentially linking it to curatorial practices. This progression seems logical, as industrial-scale productions backed by capital have led to a general fatigue regarding the future. Entering mainstream dissemination environments without caution would be futile. Galleries offer a more authentic experience, which could align well with narrative integrity and further integrate into game studies theories. It needs to be clarified if current speculative design practices pay enough attention to their dissemination environments, and many researchers’ practices seem rudimentary, avoiding large-scale public engagement in favour of small-scale experiments or developmental stages. This suggests a need for more significant connection between practical and theoretical work in speculative design, even though both areas have successful examples. Moreover, speculative design studies generally do not consider the issue of dissemination environments. The “gallery iteration” concept could be valuable for research combining speculative design and dissemination environment perspectives.

Discussions still revolve around binaries like commercial vs. academic and affirmative vs. negative, among others. However, according to James’s research, the design process involves presupposition, progress, and friction. Progress represents the affirmative and commercial aspects, while friction pertains to critique and discussion, making both integral to the design process. This mirrors action research, a similar process that enables research to enter a perpetual upward spiral. Overall, the preference for blurring boundaries not only addresses the internal ambiguities of “friction design” but also embraces the “contradictions” of design theories like speculative design, which are lacking in detail due to their pursuit of inclusivity.

It is easy to critique the status quo and further critique that critique, but this natural process can become more gentle and inclusive. Treating uncertainty as the norm and using uncertain theories to study an uncertain future can enrich our approaches to exploring future uncertainties.

https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/persons/thma/publications/

1.

Regarding games in a serious context, its essence lies in using entertainment-based games (non-serious games) within a serious context to create dialogue and understanding. This aligns with what I mentioned in my project, the pursuit of ‘resonance’ and ‘contemplation’ in the context of time and media research, as well as the pursuit of the ‘cycle of internal and external narratives’ in the book on narrative and cognition. In essence, it is about elevating and completing the internal narrative of individuals. For example, in the game ‘Dad’s Escape,’ it essentially allows criminals and their children to understand each other while also gaining insight into the relationship between prisoners, police, and even social order. This is a process that constitutes a complete and neutral narrative.

However, this is essentially creating possibilities within a broader context. The goal of ‘creating dialogue, understanding, and possibilities’ can indeed be applied to most design and art projects that focus on representation and sparking contemplation. So, in the future, is there a need for further refinement of the purpose of my project (to emphasize uniqueness)? This question is somewhat similar to the previous consideration of whether design fiction needs a clear evaluation criterion. In what situations are more detailed evaluation criteria or purposes needed? I believe that more detailed purposes and requirements are better suited to an evaluation environment that is more segmented and supported by a sufficient number of works. Therefore, how to place my project within a suitable framework is also a future problem to be solved, regardless of whether this framework requires me to summarize it personally.

I think the introduction of the concept of role-playing would be very helpful in summarizing the design game narrative that requires mutual understanding. For design primarily focused on fiction and speculative futures, role-playing will be a great tool for creating dialogue. The author further demonstrates in the discussion of fiction and participation the potential of fiction to encourage participation and open up new possibilities for the design discipline. So, I am contemplating whether this is a trend towards more intersections between the design and gaming disciplines or if it has already emerged.

2.

In this regard, in the famous Dragon Speech on games in 1992, Chris Crawford introduced the concept of the death of electronic games because he believed that interactive storytelling would encompass various fields such as games, movies, and more. However, I believe this is a somewhat extreme way of calling for attention to shift from the depth of game development to the breadth of interdisciplinary approaches. The ‘dragon’ he hoped to defeat was the industry’s focus on a development approach that overly emphasized graphics, narrative depth, immersion, and so on, as I understand it. From this perspective, my project may not necessarily be a speculative design project but rather a development that inherits the core of speculative design and evolves into a more extensive ‘design that sparks dialogue and contemplation.’ Of course, this can certainly be categorized as a variation of speculative design, but it’s worth considering to what extent this research can or needs to form a new discipline or concept distinct from speculative design.

Looking at it from another angle, has the concept of speculative design become rigid or created some bottlenecks? While discussing the potential for improving speculative design, could breaking through these bottlenecks through the introduction of a new concept be a simpler and faster strategy? Of course, there is also the possibility that there may not be a need to set too many boundaries. Many express indifference towards boundaries and have expectations of breaking them, which is another idealized state. So, the importance of setting boundaries and rules for the field itself is a subject worthy of much discussion.

Based on my current observations, in the realm of design practice, clear boundaries often have relatively little significance, and even the boundaries between design and other disciplines are gradually becoming blurred. However, from the perspective of theoretical research and discipline development, I believe that further clarifying or iterating concepts is definitely beneficial. However, my personal experience in theoretical research is somewhat limited, and I need to engage in more reading and writing to help myself maintain an open and impartial observational stance.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Zu2ayvcAAAAJ&hl=en

1.

In the discussion about solutionism, the authors acknowledge opposition to solutionism while criticising works that completely disregard solutions/practicality. The question arises whether the problem-solving mindset needs to be avoided entirely. Previous practices have seen pitfalls in overly pursuing problem-solving, and the improvement of solutionism involved replacing the term ‘solution’ with ‘exploration.’

However, based on the author’s discussion, it becomes clear that exploration alone is insufficient in design. I personally align with this viewpoint. Furthermore, solutions and exploration are not opposing concepts; what the author seems to seek is the possibility of seeking change within exploration. However, I believe that finding a better balance may require a sense of urgency for mass participation rather than just theoretical discussions. After all, only those who truly understand military strategy will empathize with theoretical discussions, but design practices primarily target the general public. Therefore, it may be crucial to introduce the term ‘intervention’ and think from the perspective of intervention in design to significantly reduce the risk of purely conceptual or impractical pitfalls. Thus, participatory practices become critically important.

In my previous learning experiences, I have fully integrated participatory approaches into practice. However, for designers who have traditionally leaned toward art or academia, this might be a challenge. Additionally, some argue that the current educational environment overly favors purely conceptual works. Perhaps such works are more likely to stimulate the desire for discussion among a professional audience. Still, they often mark the end of many projects, followed by self-indulgence.

However, the author’s discussion neglects the consideration of the audience and context. Who the work is intended for is important regardless of the audience. The key is to appropriately guide the audience to think, whether through discussion or active participation, after presenting satirical works. This benefits both the content and presentation of the design.

The author frequently references the ‘magic machine’ case as a typical fusion of satirical and participatory narratives, contributing to broader discussions about designs that disconnect from the public. However, hastily adding interruptions or creating other content in works that are primarily satirical and representational might lead to narrative disruptions, potentially resulting in a subpar audience experience. Therefore, the necessity of inducing participation and discussion, as well as how to induce them, is a topic deserving further exploration.

2.

The transition from speculative design to design fiction represents a shift from practice to strategy. Speculative design is responsible for the development of models (narrative prototypes) and the rationality of details, while design fiction takes this concept and places it within a narrative, allowing people to vividly imagine how the product will be used in the future and how it will impact humanity. Many case analyses use minority reports, which are quite typical. I believe another exemplary case is Doraemon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doraemon_(character)

This relationship, as I understand it, can be illustrated with business cases. It is similar to designing products/IP and constructing in-depth narratives about products/IP within a business environment. Therefore, design fiction fundamentally serves as an extension of audience thinking and possibilities, while its strategic significance lies in guiding this thinking and extension. Thus, the combination of speculative design and design fiction represents a complete presentation of a project since their ultimate goal is to stimulate discussion and provoke thought.

3.

As for the criteria for evaluating design fiction, according to the author’s expression, there is no overarching standard because different industries have different needs. For instance, in the entertainment industry, the standard may be to captivate the audience, while in the realm of public relations, the goal may be to serve and manage reputation. In the context of human-computer interaction/thought experiments, the objective should be to generate insights into societal issues. However, I believe there is an inherent commonality that the author did not explicitly summarize, though it undoubtedly exists. Nevertheless, the significance of summarizing this commonality might be rather abstract. Therefore, I’ve been contemplating whether evaluating design fiction itself holds great importance in the current environment.

From my perspective, I aim for my project to constitute a complete narrative and foster continuous reflection. I consider it a thought experiment that strives to achieve what is sought after in both entertainment and corporate strategy. From a narrative perspective, in-depth storytelling can create a profound and lasting impact. Even very personalized and extreme forms of in-depth storytelling require a long-term, sustainable process of absorption and digestion. Thus, forming in-depth narratives can be considered a shared pursuit across all scenarios of design fiction. However, what I aspire to is not merely extreme depth in storytelling, but rather a depth that remains open to discussion throughout the entire journey. Therefore, open discussion is one of the significant distinctions between academic (tentative) and commercial design fiction. However, this concept still needs to be adapted to my specific design project. I have included the evaluation phase in the objectives of my project, so the specifics of how to evaluate will be a subject for further research in the future.

In conclusion, while it is correct to say that different industries require different standards, I believe that this conclusion, although valid, may not drive substantial progress in the field, leaving room for extensive discussions. Advancing academic research may indeed be a lengthy process.

The author mentions that robots have been confined to the realms of fiction, laboratories, exhibitions, and similar spaces. Speculative design, on the other hand, aims to break down this distance, offering a way to bring technology and the future into the current lives of people.

The author also points out that speculative design can intentionally evoke a sense of discomfort, which can stimulate the audience’s thinking. This is a technique worth exploring, as it has the potential to foster public engagement and dialogue. I relate this to my tendency to empathize with emotions like anger, which likely has corresponding psychological explanations. In my view, the ideas of discomfort and authenticity are the most inspiring aspects of my speculative project. The success of the “Audio Tooth Implant” case is attributed to its widespread dissemination and public response, further confirming the importance of public involvement. Additionally, it introduces the concept of communication, which is crucial in today’s fast-paced information age.

The author later discusses the relationship between speculative design and comedy, highlighting their shared characteristics. These include being 1.non-commercial, 2. focusing on the everyday and details, and 3. generally starting from a familiar perspective that gradually spirals out of control. This analogy makes the forms of speculative design more relatable and easier to understand.

However, in terms of definitions, I think this paper somewhat ambiguous (although this may not be the main focus). At times, it emphasizes technology and the future, but it also introduces ideas of parallel timelines and counter-histories. Currently, in mainstream content online, it seems that the concept of technology is becoming less prominent, while the idea of the future is consistently stressed. I believe the concept of the future may also require modification or redefinition. For instance, under the worldviews created by works like “The Man in the High Castle,” there is a potential for reflective design that can still be categorized as speculative design. Similar examples include the underwater cities and skyward metropolises presented in the “Bioshock” series. These settings feel very close in time, exuding a strong sense of science fiction. But do they need to be defined as the future?

The later sections on the definition of household products and robots, as well as related practices, can assist me in better understanding and implementing how to seamlessly integrate future products into everyday life. If I need to engage in the creation of speculative design content in the future, these insights will be valuable. Overall, this article will undoubtedly provide valuable assistance and serve as a point of reference for the practical guidence of my speculative design endeavors.

Toby mentioned in the paper that previous critical design research, tended to treat audience/participants as passive recipients of the design outcomes. Toby envisions speculative design as a collaborative process involving both the audience/participants and the designer, rather than being led solely by designers or researchers. This emphasis on public participation is vital for breaking down the monopoly on dialogues and fostering innovation. Furthermore, public participation can lead to a re-evaluation of speculative design, with the final reflection stemming from a broader discussion, rather than being confined to paper writing.

The emphasis on public participation is also intended to counter the limitations and arrogance of technological elites. This theme （Evolve with the times）is still actively discussed today, and contemporary speculative design faces the challenge of technological and highly polished commercial works monopolising relevant content (like black mirror, hard to use their performance and tech stander for all works). I believe that the high level of public involvement mentioned by Toby is something that commercial works lack. From a commercial perspective, public participation may not be the most profitable option. However, from a speculative design perspective, this is an aspect worth advocating and exploring.

Simultaneously, the author challenges the status and influence of exhibitions concerning the sustainable impact and cyclical nature of speculative design. He suggests that exhibitions should be questioned and challenged rather than viewed as the termination and authority of a project. In my opinion, projects should not have a distinct endpoint; they should have the potential for continuous development based on ongoing questioning by stakeholders and participants. I had not thought much about this aspect before because in my initial understanding, public participation in the final steps of design works was mostly about making improvements to the user experience and addressing issues such as technical implementation. However, the bidirectional nature of public participation and feedback should be more evident. Public involvement should aim to be more constructive and sincere, which aligns with Toby’s perspective.

Nevertheless, guiding the public or stakeholders to participate constructively is a challenging task. In previous projects, I have interacted with clinical psychologists, but most time they only showed respect and approval of the project. Even when they offered feedback, it was related to the experience rather than the content itself, but their expertise does not lie in the user experience but in the content. But on the other hand, with projects involving strong concepts, narratives, or viewpoints, a larger audience is more likely to engage. They may not be as professional but are more inclined to express their opinions. However, this so clear and strong content can lead to a lack of space for the audience to imagine and contemplate. This raises a significant question: how can we strike a balance between abstract designs that may not stimulate enough engagement and highly specific designs that leave little room for interpretation and reflection? This is an issue I need to contemplate and explore further.

Toby also introduces the concept of “designer-decentered” thinking in speculative design projects. I interpret this as adopting a role of initiating and guiding the project. The limited degree of public participation in my previous projects may largely result from later restrictions and a more private nature of these projects. Therefore, how to coordinate and guide interactions between the audience and users, and the necessity for this, is something I will need to consider. This will require a shift from a hierarchical to a networked relationship.

In conclusion, Toby’s paper has provided me with a fresh perspective on public participation in speculative design. It has challenged my preconceived notions and highlighted the need for public involvement to be more constructive and genuine. This new understanding will be essential as I continue my work in the field of speculative design. This can serve as a critical reference for my project.

The concept of “temporal form,” as mentioned by the author, has practical applications in design to enhance the understanding and consideration of the interaction between time and space. In my interpretation(learn from the article), the factors influencing time and interaction can be categorised into five aspects:

1. Material and its variations.
2. User experience.
3. Dynamism.
4. Event-driven design.
5. Long-term usability.

The first point subtly affects users’ temporal experiences and sensory perceptions. The second and third aspects primarily address the attraction to users, particularly within the context of the time they spend on the experience. The fourth point is related to how time is perceived during the experience, and the fifth pertains to long-term considerations. This framework bears substantial resemblance to my project’s workflow, making this article a valuable source of parallel inspiration.

The concept of material in interactive design has been particularly enlightening for me. Before reading this article, I had limited knowledge in this area. The author emphasises that material should be intertwined with the user experience, focusing on simulation and enhancement to add depth to the overall experience. Drawing from personal experiences, I can relate this concept to the tactile qualities in gaming. For example, in certain video games, the sensation of driving can be either realistically immersive or more abstract, almost as if one is floating. The feedback from the controller, including vibrations and pressure sensations, is closely tied to the concept of material.

I’ve also encountered similar ideas related to material when it comes to communication design and narrative content. It often creates a sense of “ritual” that immerses the audience in the experience. From a speculative design perspective, it involves convincing viewers that they are genuinely part of a critical future environment, rather than merely receiving one-sided education and narration. This contributes to guiding the transformation and elevation of both internal and external narratives, with materials playing a significant role.

The aspects of dynamism and the user experience process can be adopted as methods to inspire the production of my project. Given that my speculative design project primarily revolves around narrative and interaction, the insights from the article will serve as valuable references.

Furthermore, the author emphasises avoiding designs that are controlled by capital or driven solely by the pursuit of progress or specific objectives. These points are highly applicable to the field of speculative design and align with the current educational environment. In the three papers I’ve read recently, there is a consistent focus on these themes. During my master’s studies, I made a conscious effort to overcome the strong desire for purpose or success in design. However, there are moments when my understanding of progress remains somewhat shallow. This may require more practical experience to deepen my comprehension.

I think The article portrays time as a kind of backdrop, encompassing concepts like the future, continuity, materiality, and the process. Time is omnipresent throughout the article, functioning as a backdrop. Nevertheless, the potential consequences of altering( or enhance) time experiences in the context of interaction and narrative processes, and their critical impact, are not explicitly addressed in the article.

The paper provides more of a framework and methodological assistance for understanding the role of time in design, serving as a reference point to evaluate various time-related factors.

link of room I:

www.welcometoroomi.com

Based on the feedback from a teacher who is doing communication design, I can try more video content as a guide. Also, based on the unclear guidance that many people have reported before, I made this video. This video combined with the manual is more explicit, but Whether it is necessary to replace the manual with a video entirely is worth studying in the next testing stage. Since the latest stakeholders already know the complete usage process, this test needs to find some new users to test, regardless of how the project’s guiding fluency and the audience’s understanding of fluency are technical issues that need attention.

There is another technical problem regarding the smoothness of using the mobile version of ROOM I. I don’t know why the image cannot be clearly displayed on the mobile webpage. Currently, a link is used to guide into google drive temporarily, but a better solution needs to be explored.

I have recently gained some new understanding of the positive thinking brought about by people’s feedback regarding future development plans. My audience is people troubled by anxiety but doesn’t think they need professional treatment because everyone finds quick ways to divert attention. In this case, is it easier for the audience to be actively guided? I realize that the point of the problem is to make people realize why they need to think about the (cognitive) problem. We must believe in stakeholders’ initiatives and give adequate guidance to create more possibilities.

Therefore, the focus of the next stage is to dilute the difficulty of interaction and operation, focus on the transformation of internal narrative and external narrative through more direct interaction, attract people and make people think through reasonable narrative and design.

The general direction of the next stage is how transmedia art/design narratives can better guide people’s thinking about self-cognition. The difference between the project and many art /designs projects is that they focus all on present ideas and thoughts. Still, I need stakeholders to have simple interactions during the experience; the balance is still worth exploring more.

After adjusting the narrative and description, the project has become much clearer, and I realized that I had emphasized that this is a short test before, and stakeholders would think it was only three to five minutes. But after I described the test as a ten-minute test, no one raised the question of the length of time.

In response to the two feedback points of reflection mentioned by the experts, it can be seen from the questionnaire that everyone agrees more with the reflection effect provided by the story background in the first experiment. I asked the audience how they felt, and they responded that the video only needed to be watched once. So if don’t watch the video in the later days of the intervention, won’t get a more immersive experience. However, the small visual elements in the project can still be effective.

Regarding emotions, stakeholders generally believe that the project provides an excellent relaxing atmosphere and settings, and the process of operating the project is relaxing, which is very helpful for emotional relaxation. The project will bring more positive tendencies.stakeholders also mentioned that last days’s feeling will be better than first day , the first day need to learn from the rules.

The feedback on emotions inspired me to think. Most audiences can think positively, but they lack guidance. Guiding people to think positively is worth studying, but the premise is that they need to think first.

Therefore, the two projects of thinking and emotion are closely related. The most intuitive way to give stakeholders continuous thinking and reflection is by making more videos. This will require a lot of time making, so I should Think about how to produce some random narrative content or simplify the production process. In short, the essential point to consider is how to continue to guide reflection.

So here are a few future questions:

1. How to guide the positive inner factors of anxious people?
2. How to make the narrative content in visual design have continuous influence and freshness? Through small graphic elements?
3. How to enhance the interactive experience in cross-media narration?

In addition, there is another problem caused by the unclear design of the previous instructions. As mentioned earlier, the explanation is also part of the interaction. Now it has been improved, and the feedback after the improvement has been improved. The following data combines before and after the modification. In short, although this issue is fundamental, it deserves more attention.

The following are the changes corresponding to the previous blog

web’s link :https://www.welcometoroomi.com

While audiences have fun with my intervention, a fatal problem that almost everyone mentions is that the project process is a little messy or incomprehensible.

The split method I mentioned before is feasible in response to this problem, but it is more like evading the current issue and finding a way to avoid it. I think head-on is the better choice. So I had an in-depth exchange with users who asked related questions,

Summary of key feedback on what confused:

1. Some sentences are not clear
2. Don’t know what order should be followed
3. It isn’t easy to understand what room i is at the beginning of the project
4. Description information and narrative information are repeated. For example, what is mentioned in the video will appear again in the manual. The part of the ocean map has description content that is duplicated in the manual.

In response to these problems, first of all, for the expression problem, I will modify some meaningless words in the text on the paper that will affect understanding. I intend to create as much ease as possible, but the balance between clear and interesting expression is not controlled well.

Secondly, I will give each accessory in the kit a digital label so that people can find the corresponding sequence content.

The third point is to redesign the QR code card that guides audiences to watch the video; I will add an introduction to the card to introduce room i.

Regarding the issue of narrative repetition, I will delete some unnecessary narratives in the manual and move the description of the ocean map to the manual. After dealing with this issue, the functions of the video and the manual will be more obvious. The video uses To guide the audience to relax and feel the background initially, the role of the manual is to let the audience understand how to operate. Ocean Map will only retain the introduction of the map background to make the audience more immersed in this process.

In before’s feedback, I was not sure why the interactive part was hard to get audiences agreement. But understanding guidance is the most basic and first interaction, this part in my project is not so hard to change, so I will quickly redesign and update.