8. User Testing Detailing is too pronounced The form is not very wearable and might be considered as more for artistic value rather than for consumption User customization tools need to be used to create products that you care about and that reflect something about yourself There is a serious need for customizable tools for clothing
9. What I Learned Suspension of reality/disbelief is only appropriate for products that are not for everyday, public consumption There must be joy in the customization process If the product doesn’t align with their perceived public image, they won’t buy it
10. concept An effective customization tool must empower the user to make something they personally connect with, or in some way incorporates the user’s feelings or persona, in order for the user to have a sense of ownership over their creation.
11. What I Propose to Make A customization tool that allows the user to design and order a plush creature or pillow in any likeness starting with… A selection of base body forms Eyes, ears, and mouths Legs, arms, horns, other appendages, etc. Skin from custom uploads (custom digital printing) or an existing selection or pre-chosen prints
13. Why? There is currently nothing like this, where you can digitally design your own plush object and have it created Closest things include Build-a-Bear workshop (shudder) and super-expensive monster kit People feel an affinity for plush objects and pillows they’re comfortable and can assume many identities they can have a personal value separate from your public persona
14. For Symposium Demo of customization tool 3+ examples of objects created with tool Vision
15. Schedule Week of: March 7 – UX / base forms locked March 21 – put all forms in Flash March 28 – program selection tool April 4 – selection tool, visualization tool April 11 – make demo products April 18 – more demo products + QA for site April 26 – QA for site
16. Life After Symposium Functioning customization tool Post user creations Order your own creation Make most popular creations available
1. THESIS CONCEPT CRITERIA: Does the student’s project demonstrably marry an idea with its form? How well does its idea materialize in the project itself – for example, by participant-experience, interface, interaction model, filmic technique, other means to its end or aim?2. THESIS CONTEXT CRITERIA: How successfully has the candidate located the idea and form of the thesis in the current dialogue of the field (domain, area) and demonstrated its historical, social and technological significance? Did the student conduct appropriate and sufficient research? Is there evidence that the student’s research shaped and informed the project?3. THESIS CONTRIBUTION CRITERIA: Has the candidate thoroughly tested the target group or audience for the use and reception of the project? Do the project’s form, setting, interaction model, message, point of view, and aesthetics anticipate and satisfy its audience or participant’s needs, interests, or requirements? Has the student been in dialogue with the community to whom the thesis project will matter? Has the student entered the thesis project in exhibitions, shared documentation with a peer group, or demonstrated the project’s efficacy with a target audience?4. REFLECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA: Does the student have a clear sense of the life of the project beyond thesis? Is the student able to reflect on the efficacy of the thesis process and its outcome? Can the student point to areas for improvement and further work? Can the student evaluate the success level of the project?5. PROJECT METHOD IS CLEAR AND APPROPRIATE: Has the candidate applied appropriate project technology and design in sync with the stated goals and production schedule of the project? Is the student appropriately deploying his/her research, developing a support system for user testing/outside evaluation, and effectively using resources in pursuit of project goals?
