The successes and the failures of the artifact

The whole process of the project was us making our decision on the topic, making the prototype, and dividing the group work. Successes and failures were both found during the process. During our first meeting, which was through Zoom, we went over the documents and talked about each topic. Shortly after that, we decided to pick "Connection Paradox" for our project, there were no disputes and everyone gave feedback on each other's ideas. After the online meeting to decide what topic we should pick, we met up on campus to decide how the prototype should look, and why. From here on, every team member actively puts forward their own opinions and ideas. During this period, everyone raised questions and puzzled over other people’s opinions, which also allowed us to avoid many problems. After a long discussion, we finally decided to combine our ideas to get a good start with the prototype. Fortunately, there were not many disputes over the prototype, and everyone completed their part of the project very well. Then comes the biggest problem, the plot of the story of our project, because we aimed for the plot and act of the story to be very clear about what our project is for and the potential downside of it. We did achieve that after the performance, but we went through a lot of discussion and persuasion with one another. One of the main reasons was that we are from different countries and cultures, some things that are normal to me might not be normal for one of them. From that, each of us had to really explain beyond the idea that we wanted to present to the group so that all the group members understood how and why he or she came up with that idea. There was also a small argument during this period, causing the entire group to fall into a brief silence. But in general, everyone is very dedicated to this project, which is why there are arguments. Everyone wants to bring what they think is best to each other.

Does it relate to the established form of interaction you identified in your research? 

The interaction of the final work was identical to what we identified in our research, our whole topic idea was based on some old generation of telephones in history. Those old telephones where you had to spin the number section again and again, we combined with the modern idea of pressing on numbers instead of spinning on them. 

Did you showcase the detailed interaction of the artifact? 

In my opinion, I do think we showcase the detailed interaction of the artifact. Which is pressing the number buttons that say 1- 10, and each button is labeled with an arrow shape so that users know what to do next after pressing each button.  After button number 10 is pressed, the big smiling face in the middle will pop up meaning that the two users have access to the teleportation system in the artifact. 

Did you illustrate the complex nature of technology critically? 

Yes, we did illustrate the complex nature of technology critically, the first reason is that the big smiling face in the middle of the artifact doesn't pop up automatically after button number 10 is pressed, we had to manually take away the two bars that were stopping it from popping out. The second reason is that most or all of the scenes in the act that include the use of technology were pure imagination of the audience and our acting skill. 

Are there any changes you would make?

Some of the changes I would like to make were to color the artifact so that it looks better and I also would like to figure out a way for the big smiling face in the middle of the artifact to pop up automatically after the user pressed button number 10. 

Describe exactly what contributions you made for this assignment as part of your team. Explain the teamwork dynamics, the different roles, the task allocations, and how the communication within the team was.

I believe what I did in the team was I provided the idea of a teleportation phone to the group and we built up on that idea. Other than giving comments on each of my group members' ideas. I also tried to find similarities in their ideas and to combine them so that they don't have to go through too many "negotiations" to choose one from a bunch of ideas. I listen carefully to everyone's ideas and suggest what works and what doesn't. Of course, the rest of the team members did the same. I also helped with the design of the plot so that everything made sense to the audience. In the beginning, we split up the work and each of us was responsible for a significant part of the project. However, after the first meeting of splitting work, every one of us just decided to do everything together. I guess we had a special bond there. In my opinion, I would say the communication within the team went too well, everyone had their idea and we had to talk it out again and again. But this was also the reason why we successfully performed the performance at the end, and all the members of the groups were happy about that. 

Critical analysis for group 4: "Tide"

The artifact "Tide" that group 4 made, was very symbolic. You can tell just by looking that it represents something advanced and it makes people look for the story behind it. And to be honest, I think group 4 had the best performance out of all the groups, their performance really showed how much effort and hard work they put in. The design of the plot and the manual background music was the best part of it, it really helped the audience to see what was going on and what was the reason for things that were happening in the plot. This is why I think their performance was really creative, they also met the criteria of the assignment really well because they provided a detailed background story of how people in 2124 are spending too much time on digital devices. And what they did to address the problem with a device that automatically shuts down all your personal digital devices after reaching the limit of the day. However, I do think there was a lot of "telling" during the performance for the audience rather than "showing" because one of the goals of this performance is for the audience to get an idea of what the artifact does and how it functions through performing. So my suggestion for improvements would be to do more "showing" rather than just directly telling the audience what is happening and why it happened with words.

Pictures for prototype: