Monday, 14 December 2009

OUGD102 - Collection 100 - Research proposal.

Aim - to derive a subject matter from:
15 objects I find interesting:
  1. Photographs
  2. I Pod
  3. Drums
  4. Bass
  5. Bread
  6. Stones
  7. Birds
  8. Eiffel Tower
  9. Books
  10. Television
  11. Lace clothes
  12. Money (how I can't handle it)
  13. Monkeys
  14. Butterflies
  15. Feathers
15 subjects I find interesting:
  1. Football
  2. Photography
  3. Movies
  4. Music
  5. World war two
  6. Endangered species
  7. Serial killers (O.K. that's wierd - but it's more their state of mind).
  8. Traveling
  9. French interiors - the old vintage style
  10. Jeremy Kyle (the show - not him) - purely because it's so interesting to think about where he found the latest scum that goes on his show.
  11. Technology
  12. Conspiracies
  13. Basketball
  14. Olympics
  15. Design
15 places I find interesting:
  1. New York
  2. Paris
  3. Florida
  4. Australia
  5. The sea
  6. Down on the Foreshore (Hull)
  7. Japan
  8. China
  9. Area 51
  10. Thailand
  11. Rome
  12. Woods
  13. The Park
  14. Towns/Cities
  15. London
15 people I find interesting:
  1. George Bush
  2. Obama
  3. Dallas Green
  4. Tom Delonge
  5. Heath Ledger
  6. Hitler
  7. Jeff Buckley
  8. Patrick Wolf
  9. Will Ferrell
  10. Steve Carell
  11. Seth Rogan
  12. Napoleon Dynamite (O.K. so he's fictional)
  13. Ron Burgundy
  14. Marilyn Monroe
  15. Michael Jackson

Subject matter:

I want to look into music.

Possible categories:
  • local gigs.
  • festivals.
  • CD's.
  • Downloads.
  • instruments.
  • DJ's
  • Music production.
  • bands.
  • Album/Single charts.
  • I-Pods
  • Club nights - how music stems down into club nights.
  • Fashion.
Research processes:
  • Going to gigs.
  • Looking back at past gigs I've been to.
  • Looking through CD artwork.
  • Go to instrument shops.
How will I research?
  • Attend gigs / attended gigs,
  • my CD collection,
  • visiting shops,
  • flyers, posters etc.
  • Books - CD / poster artwork,
  • others gig pictures,
  • Internet - past flyers/posters, gig pictures,
  • Magazines - inserts for tours, editorials.

Who/Where will I research?
  • friends that are in bands, go to their gigs,
  • DJ sets I can go to,
  • general shops - in my home town and here in Leeds there are plenty of band flyers going about.
  • Internet,
  • books,
  • magazines,
  • bands websites I like... etc

Friday, 11 December 2009

OUGD102 - What if... evaluation

What problem did the group identify? Initially the problem me and my group decided to tackle was the fact that Leeds doesn't have enough cycle lanes and how it was dangerous for cyclists to bike around the city. This derived from our themes: city traveling, journey experience, from home to Paris etc. We did feel at first that our themes pointed towards international travel, but then decided that in order to fulfill the brief and aim it at a section of the public of Leeds, that domestic travel would be better to look at. However, after our group "pin up and pitch" presentation we quickly realised we had unearthed more problems and were unclear in the end what our main problem was - we decided to focus in on some of the other problems that had arisen and looked to solve the issue of the number of "ignorant" cyclists on the road and make them aware of the dangers they pose to motorists. Initial presentation boards:

What evidence did I find to support the decisions made? The evidence we gathered to support the new problem was based around how many bike accidents there are and other such things. From this new body of research we discovered five key facts that helped us make the final decision and be happy with our new problem:
  • 20% of all road accidents involve a bicycle.
  • 60% of fatal cycle accidents have been caused by the cyclists.
  • 25% of cyclists killed are under 16.
  • Cycling campaigns have encouraged a rush of inexperienced riders.
  • 90% of West Yorkshire's cycling accidents occur in urban areas.
These are all types of secondary and quantitative research. It also became apparent from a report on BBC new website and through Karl's observations that there was a growing "cult" of I-pod zombies, making them more susceptible to causing accidents as they become less aware of what is happening around them. I quite liked this idea of creating a "campaign" wit ha modern twist - rather than producing similar mundane 'instructions' such as "wear a helmet on the roads", people don't listen to that anymore.

Methods used to gather evidence, and the forms that it took? The research we collected could be split down into four categories: Primary Quantitative; Secondary Quantitative; Primary Qualitative and Secondary Qualitative.
Primary Quantitative
: At first we thought it would be a good idea to head into Leeds city centre with a closed question questionnaire to ask to the general public, however this proved highly unsuccessful as people tended to avoid poor Pav or rushed on ahead, thus achieve no results, we resorted to sending questionnaires to people we knew - such as housemates, students on the course, tutors amongst others from around the Leeds area. This information was then displayed in the form of pie charts to support what we were saying.
Primary Qualitative: Whilst out in town trying to ask the public questions, we decided it would be a good idea to take photos of the cycle lanes to show how pointless, short and dangerous they were to all people on the road.
Secondary Quantitative: Our research mainly came from the Internet - but we made sure we used reliable sources - (and not Wikipedia) such as BBC news, we mainly gathered a series of facts that could help us prove that cyclists are the main cause of accidents on the road. We felt that by using the reliable sources that the statistics gained were trusted and accurate.
Secondary Qualitative: again much of this research came from the Internet - this is generally because other sources to do with cycling - such as tourist information uses good points in their articles to get people to cycle. We looked at cycle forums, comments made after articles websites etc to further illustrate our problem.

What methods of research did I find useful?
I think I found the primary quantitative research the most useful - this is because we could access a large section of the Leeds public directly and quickly to obtain big results and mainly to see if more people would be willing to cycle (41% would) and make sure our problem was worth continuing with. The secondary research we conducted I thought was very useful as it provided useful statistics and fact - such like the top five I have stated at the beginning of this post, and as I've already said, because we used reliable sources, we trusted what we were being told.

What research could I have carried out that would have proved more useful? I think I personally could have done more primary research, also as a group it may have been beneficial to maybe conduct a second questionnaire to obtain extra information when our problem changed - it may have been useful to see from a driver's point of view what they thought about cyclists on the road - I for one think they're are so annoying (the ones who don't look) and I nearly killed a few this week - purely down to their sheer lack of spacial awareness and erratic actions!

Five things that I have learned about the design process over the last two weeks:
  • That good research links to a good footing in being able to form ideas and opinions.
  • That planning a presentation really comes across well, you feel calmer because you know what you;re talking about and my confidence did grow as a result.
  • I know now that there are various types of researching and through conducting most - if not all - you definitely get a broad range of information in order to be able to go through and actually construct - in this case a problem.
  • That it is definitely important to generate lots of initial ideas.
  • It is important to communicate within a group, say no to ideas when you don't necessarily think it's going to work and it is necessary to split up into roles within the group.
Five things I would do differently next time:
  • I would try and voice my opinions more, although I felt included within the group, I sometimes struggle to get across my ideas, I also need to believe in them more and push them forward rather than hiding away in the background.
  • I need to learn to be more critical of others work and not just go along with what is said.
  • I need to produce initial sketches for ideas quicker... I think with the sheer pace the group took (gained by the time we had) I struggled to have ideas done on a night - this may sound selfish but I can't be working all day and all night and I had to find a balance.
  • Try and develop ideas quicker, I felt that we launched into one idea too quick - with more time spent over it I feel the final outcome could have been so much better.
  • Conduct more individual research.