PROFESSOR BLADE KOTELLY: I think the way
that we open their thinking in the process of teaching
it is to start connecting our process to everything else they
do in life.
So start to really make sure that they understand
the connections between the design process being used
for something as simple as planning
a birthday party to something more complicated, like making
a mechanical system, designing a phone, or something like that.
We try to have them reflect on it in their normal existence.
So, do a design critique of something,
and come back in with that.
So we can actually have them think
about oh, the design of a simple object
in my life, what do I like about it?
What don't I like about it?
And then they start thinking a little bit differently,
because they realize that all the ideas they've
had about certainty, these principles
are true-- they realize, well, they aren't always true.
In fact, they're only true in context.
PROFESSOR JOEL SCHINDALL: Part of what
we do in the class is to ask provocative questions.
Students will give an answer that they
think is the normal answer to the question.
And Blade will say, why do you think that?
The students are a little irritated.
I think that because that's the right thing to think.
But it turns out that it's not the only way to look at it.
And they simply haven't challenged
that way of looking at.
And sometimes we have to walk a little fine line
to not be too irritating with this.
But the fact is, the irritation provokes the expanded
exploration, the sensitivity to things around them,
which is what we want to draw out in this class.
PROFESSOR BLADE KOTELLY: Some of the other goals
include just doing a really clean, simple design
process they can apply to anything.
Being able to operate as a designer does.
So in the context of whatever they're doing,
know how to evaluate systems.
Thinking about people.
Understanding stakeholders.
Understanding a little bit about the architecture of a system
and how to abstract it out.
Understanding how to write good requirements.
Being able to usability test something
to see if someone actually can use it, they like using it.
Understanding the psychology of human interaction
with technology is really important.
Being able to think that the brand of something
actually affects the way someone uses it.
It's not just the logo or something else,
but the way the whole system feels and the identity it
produces in the mind of someone that's
unique compared to other systems.
And hopefully they're able to see all this whenever
they create anything.
PROFESSOR JOEL SCHINDALL: Blade had previous experience
when we put the course together in speech-activated
satisfaction systems, or answering systems.
There's no easy name for it in the language, or at least
I'm missing it, but when you call American Airlines to get
information about a flight, or when you call to order a pizza,
you'll often interact with an automated voice system which
gives you certain prompts, listens to your responses,
and based on those responses it gives you other prompts.
Most people find them very exasperating,
because somehow they don't seem to be foreseeing correctly
the issue that you're dealing with.
And so we have the students design systems.
Initially, we have them design a simple pizza ordering
system or simple banking transaction system,
but then as their project for the term,
they will do a more complicated system.
Something like, one of them did a system--
I forget the exact name-- but it was for a parent
to let a child call this automated system and it would
say, "Hi, this is Santa's elf.
And what would you like for Christmas this year?"
And the child will respond with what
it would like to get for Christmas.
And the system is prompted to listen for things
and it will record the child's answer, say
that's a wonderful thing, we'll see what we can do.
And then the system actually will call or text
the child's parent to tell the child's parent
what the child asked for for Christmas.
It was a very clever idea, and it
was implemented in such a way that people who used it
actually had fun and enjoyed the answers.
The challenge for the students is
that you'd think that designing a speech-activated system
is an easy thing to do.
And you quickly get humbled by the fact
that the first person who you have try it
comes up with a perfectly logical response that
is not what you had predicted.
And it forces you to get into the user's head
and look at what do I need to provide
the user in the way of information
and what responses do I need to be prepared to respond to,
so that I can have an effective dialogue with this user?
It's a wonderful way of training the students
in how to be methodical, how to put together a plan,
how to engineer something, but how to also test it
with users and deal with the issues that
come up with those users.