Through combining our separate bodies of research we established that there were aspects of Leeds that go unseen. Areas of urban decay, street art, and unusual architecture can be gold mines for inspiration and excitement, yet the average tourist information guide will restrict viewers to inner city attractions demanding money from a very typical audience of families and young travellers. Students new to area however will begin seeking out cheaper and more interesting alternatives to the events and attractions placed right in front them, and providing them with information in the form of an 'anti-tourist guide' as such is the problem we have identified to be solved.
What evidence did you find to support your decisions?
Our collective set of photographs displayed areas of decay and vandalism, but when observed from the right direction and with an open mind it becomes possible to see these areas as quite aesthetically alternative and pleasing, and due to their apparent lack of ownership can become platforms for artwork and installations, making use of the surrounding environment instead of being restricted to studio atmospheres.
Colourflex Dyeworld: an area of unexpected beauty and limitless potential. photo: urbexforums.co.uk
What methods did you use to gather your evidence and what forms did it take?
A variety of research methods were adopted in order to gather relevant evidence:
Primary quantitative: graphs of data collected from surveys
Primary qualitative: questionnaires
we collected a large amount of secondary research in both qualitative and quantitative forms from forums and websites.
What methods of research did you find useful and why?
The surveys and questionnaires were particularly useful in terms of determining whether our project was worthwhile or not, however the secondary research highlighted to possibilities and directions we could take this brief, and was an absolute goldmine for unknown areas and cool stuff. However going onto the internet and locating this is where the challenge lies, and in effect became our task: to group all of this information into the same space.
How did these inform your response to the problem?
They helped us taylor our guide to the needs of the audience (students), who were directly feeding us the information and requirements needed from such a publication.
What methods did you encounter as problematic?
I do not feel that any method of research was problematic, as all methods were resourceful, the problem was perhaps that we could have carried out more research.
How did you overcome this?
I will in future overcome this by carrying out more research.
What research could you have carried out that would have proved more useful?
Exploring more places in person, rather than relying more so on internet forums and easy solutions. Perhaps surveying the general public to see whether there would be interest in the publication outside the category of students.
Five things I have learnt about the design process.
-Process drives the outcome, and outcome should not drive the process
-Collaboration is a challenge but can be incredibly useful for getting one workload completed five times faster
-Collaboration however is in some ways restrictive in terms of creating a personal response to briefs.
-The internet should not be the first port of call for research
-Things should be done now, and not in a while.
Five things I will do differently next time.
-Solely rely on process to lead me to the outcome.
-Recognise collaborative briefs as a chance to create something I would not normally create.
-Ensure I try harder to engage more in collaborative briefs in terms of generating ideas
-Do not use the internet as a first port of call.
-Do things now and not wait til tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment