Background

I ran a seminar on Iteration and Playtesting with a group of students from the Parsons School of Design. My aim was to showcase study a product’s creation process as reactive to its technological context then run a playtest of that product using Sharp and Macklin’s framework for evaluating the design efficacy of games.

 

Specifically, I was interested in how users were able (or not) to achieve their goals of “Playing Music” using an iPod, the original portable music player released by Apple in 2001. I was curious to see if 20 years later the intended experience was still intelligible by a much younger audience. Most people in the focus were 1 when the iPod was released.

 

In evaluating the playtest, I looked at actions, goals, challenges, information spaces, feedback, decision-making, player perceptions, contexts of play, takeaways, and emotions.

After the playtest, I incubated and brainstormed on potential improvements to the first iPod and derived takeaways on the usabilty of the STEM player.

Following the playtest and iterative incubation session on the iPod, I presented the STEM player, a new audio player designed by Alex Klein and the team at KANO, to the group, with no introduction or instruction besides that the device was on and could play music. The STEM player is an interactive audio player that allows the user to remix the song they are playing. It comes loaded with music but any song can be uploaded to the device. The songs on the device are split by their stems: drums, bass, synth, vocals. Users can control each component as well as create loops and control pitch and speed. Finally, the player is also a recorder meaning the user can record and save their newly created remixed track.

Insights from the iPod playtest

Here are some of the insights the group adduced with regards to the iPod.

 

In terms of Actions, answering the question of whether they knew what they could and could not do, users, at first, found it difficult to understand the directions when using the wheel. However, it does not take long for the user to gain familiarity with the repetitive motions of the wheel. The main challenges they faced were in adding music using the iTunes software and using some of the Settings functionalities such as date- and time-changing.

Behind the iPod

The iPod was a device that attempted to correct the mistakes of its predecessors. The team behind its design, Steve Jobs, Sir Jonathan Ive, Jon Rubinstein, and Michael Dhuey, sought to create a “better MP3 player”. It was made possible by technological advancements in hard drives, as well as a will to create an accompanying music store to facilitate the music transfer process. Up until now, other flash players were mostly drag-and-drop and storage capacity for portable players was limited.

 

The competitive landscape was fragmented amongst many electronic companies.

This table below shows some of the specs of the different media players and a better overview of the market Apple was entering in.

Each media player had a set of features it inherited from previous media-playing technologies, such as cassette players and CD players. A player should allow users to “Play”, “Pause”, “Stop”, “Go to Next Track”, “Go to Previous Track”, “Raise Volume” and “Lower Volume”.

 

Although the goal was to create a device with the above features as well as improved memory and a computer interface for music transfer, the team at Apple sought to differentiate the product not only technically but also aesthetically. While the design of other media players borrowed from futuristic aesthetics with bright colors and advanced plastics, Apple’s design team borrowed from the past to create a product that was as beautiful as functional. Namely, they drew inspiration from Western European designs such as Dieter Rams’ work at Braun and the luxury home technology products of Bang & Olufsen.

The STEM Player

After this long preamble presenting the iPod, I introduced the STEM Player. Here are some videos of the playtest.

First Impressions

Here are some of the tester’s first impressions following the experience:

• In comparison to the iPod, they felt in much less familiar territory

• The product has no language which makes comprehension more difficult (language-free)

• It took about 4 minutes for the users to figure the basic features and commands of the STEM player

• The sound was subpar

• Users felt guided by the haptic feedback in the player

• Its toy-like design made it more approachable than the iPod

• Even after providing them with the user guide, the testers felt like the drawn instructions were insufficient to completely figure out the product

First Impressions

Near the end, I invited the participants to compare both products

• Aesthetic

  • The iPod has a Western European aesthetic inherited from Braun and Bang & Olufsen. Its shape is geometric and the edges slightly rounded.

  • The STEM player veers towards natural design, both in terms of colour, the player is sand-coloured, and shape, it is shaped like a pebble. (We were having a harder time finding the inspirations here…)

• Materials

  • iPod: Glass and aluminium

  • STEM: silicon

• Design Associations (what words does the product bring to mind?)

  • iPod: House technology, fragile, luxury, style

  • STEM: Toy, bouncy, hard-to-break, soft, safe for children

• Emotions (how does the product make you feel?)

  • iPod: Satisfied (it helps me achieve my goals in a straight-forward fashion with little fuss)

  • STEM: Curious (it puts me in a more exploratory mood, it feels ludic and open)

  • The directory allowed members to look for one another by name or by common interest.

What do both of these products say about their users?

The iPod user is a tech-savvy individual who utilizes the product’s simple design and UX to achieve their goal in a defined and concise manner. The iPod user is a consumer but a discerning one, one who buys into the Apple brand for its promise of beautiful albeit closed objects. They live in a set of boundaries that are hard to break. The tool does not really allow the user to break free from the product’s designed walls.

 

In 2017, I presented a talk at the University of Quebec in Montreal, where I spoke about fan-based shitposting groups and their artistic practices. Specifically, I presented a “Manifesto for Shitposting” that adduced the idea that the members of these groups were a new type of audience, they were no longer passive, their practice was heavily participatory.

Manifesto for Shitposting (2017)

Nothing stands in the way of the consumer-become-creator
Nothing stands in the way of your hollowing out the peach's pit and turning it into an apple
We are no longer passive
We are the new creators
There are sequels to variations
and variations on these variations
Sequels to these sequels
We have created a franchise outside of the franchise
We have created a universe outside of the copyrighted universe
There is no author
the author is dead
there is no author
only participants
there is no author
only creators
only hollow words
only hollow images
waiting to be filled
with new meaning

 

the franchises of the future are our franchises

Takeaways

The STEM player represents a new paradigm for audio media players in that it treats its audience not as listeners but as producers. It allows them to create the strongest connection one can have with a piece of music, making it your own.

 

1. The STEM player put the user in a playful mindset compared to the legacy media player

2. However, the instructions were lacking and needed some improvement to facilitate onboarding 

3. The STEM player opened the user to a new set of possibilities and actions which the users found empowering.