Our initial research consisted of going to Burnett Woods and walking around the park. We did this in order to identify the problems that we immediately observed, and conceptualize solutions to fix these issues. In addition, we shot photographs of the signage as well as the park itself to identify the current wayfinding system, and have a reference to design new concepts from.
We also decided to interview a small group of people that we met while walking around the park. We asked them questions about the level of difficulty they encountered trying to navigate the park, as well as any other improvements they’d immediately make to the park itself.

• What did you initially hypothesize be a few problems with the overall hiking experience?

Initially, the first problems we encountered had to do with navigating the park itself. Upon entering through the entrance at the corner of Clifton and MLK, our group had no idea of where we were going within the park. Once we got to the middle intersection of the park, we again had no idea as to which roads lead to what part of the park itself.

We decided to use the only resource we had at our disposal — our sight. We saw that the lake was close by and decided to go there first. When we got to the lake we saw that there was a post with “lake trail” marked. The problem we encountered here was that there was stairs that led up to what we thought was a path in the woods. Upon exploring this path we discovered that it was a path that lead nowhere.

• Which human factor concerns are involved for study?

physical : capability of accessing/experiencing the park

Cognitive: level of difficulty navigating and accessing resources within the park

• What methods did you employ? Did you interview? Conduct a survey? Conduct observation and/or field studies? Video recording? Empathic methods (hiking yourselves w/ users)? Site/field visits and measurements?

We interviewed both adults and children, families and individual attendees. We also observed how individuals interacted with the park and prompted them: (kid: how fast can you go down the slide) and took pictures, explored the park ourselves.

• Did you create personas? What were the needs and behaviors?

Our personas were based off of the people we saw using the park. We thought about the runners, bikers, and walkers we saw (most of which were college age along with some adults). As well as the fishers and the familys.

• Who would be the primary user (the hikers)? Is there a secondary user/s (the implementers, managers of the trail)?

Primary: fishers, hikers. Groups who picnic, children who want to play, families!!!

Implementers: trail management, community center program directors, educators

Develop a set of standards for success. Identify at least 5 basic points that would assure success for your proposed design solution

Points:

-little maintenance, handicap accessible, non-discriminatory, builds community, easily readable and comprehendible.

User testing method

• With each of your concepts, what does your team recommend as the most appropriate user testing method (if there was an actual prototype, system or experience)? Why select this method? What would the testing results demonstrate?

We believe the best user testing method for our concepts would be to put up appropriate signs around the park. Then, we would ask visitors to the park if they’d like to answer some questions about their experience with the signs.

The questions could be:

-Were you able to find your way around the park smoothly?

-Did you use the signs often?

-Were the signs more helpful/confusing?

-Do the signs feel like they are a part of Burnett Woods? (aesthetics, colors, typefaces, feel)

Takeaways

• What did you learn from the process?

It was really funny to walk around the park because we got different experience from what we thought before we were there. After trying different directions and stairs, we found out the main trail. This is a surprise. In addition, it was much helpful for us to make a good communication with visitors to get some feedback about their experience in the park. We explored this park with visitor’s view and looked for something new and novel. Based on our tour, we have some direct feels about how it looks and what should be improved.

• How did the problem, and/or your hypothesis of the problem, change throughout the process (especially after getting to know the visitors)?

At first, we thought it must be a hiking and fishing place, after talking with a group of people, we realized it might be more playful than it is right now because many families come there with kids having lunches and playing games. However, the slide doesn’t work very well (it is much better with a piece of cardboard), and also there is no sign shows fishing is allowed here, besides people cannot find what the building is and the information about when it is open or close.

• What would you do differently?

Personally (crystal) if i had more time/resources, I would try to participate in every activity possible in this park and see how user friendly it is (picnicking, fishing, smoking, playing on structures, playing sports, hiking, ham mocking, slack lining, learning at the community center, running, grilling, etc). Burnett woods is a very diverse environment that we do not take advantage of enough and I would love to make this a haven for all of the community.

• How would you grade your group (One to Ten, no sevens) on process (not product)?

We would grade ourselves a solid 10/10 on our process. We worked well as a group by communicating and understanding everyone’s point of view of the project. Not everyone thinks alike, and adding all different thoughts into one assignment gives our group a more relatable feel.

Inspiration/Resources

My design tool choice is the hybrid of a spoon and fork, the spork. I was trying to think of a tool that most people use and they don’t even realize how helpful it is. Sporks are also awesome.

History

Patents for designs that resemble a spork date back all the way to at least 1874. The term “spork” was first used in the US and UK not too long after the patents went through. Samuel W. Francis is credited for patenting the first spoon, fork, knife hybrid utensil.

Function/Purpose

The function/purpose of the spork is to make eating easier. If you are trying to eat a variety of different things that are solid and liquid, why use two different utensils when you can just use the one.

User

Sporks are primarily used in a group setting instead of at home use. They are seen in schools, camps, prisons, military bases, backpackers, and also on airplanes. They are made for anyone and everyone to make eating simpler.

Materials + Production

Sporks can be made in a variety of different ways. They can be plastic, stainless steel, aluminum, titanium, and silver. The material is based on the setting you are using the utensil. If it is for home use, you would more likely use the metal spork. If you were traveling or you needed to only use it once, I would think the plastic spork is a better choice.

Affordance

Depending on the type of material you decide to purchase the spork in, they can be insanely affordable. A pack of plastic sporks can be up to only about a dollar at a convenient store. The stainless steel and other types of metal sporks may be a bit more expensive, but nothing that would cost you too much.