UX of Dirt
Brief: Design an embodied experience of dirt
Group: Izzy, Dylan, Zetong (Zoe), Mustafa, Wanrui
Research Methods: Love Letter / Break Up Letter, AEIOU
Week 1
Our initial approach to the brief was freeform discussion on dirt. We were fascinated by the way it turned into a metaphorical descriptor for non-physical things, like in the term “dirty look”.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) coined the term “Conceptual Metaphor Theory”. They argue that metaphors allow us to understand abstract concepts by linking them to concrete, embodied experiences. In this instance, a “dirty look” means its recipient feels as though they are covered in dirt by the eyes of onlookers.
We wrote Love Letters and Break Up Letters to dirty looks. In this research method, we address letters to objects by personifying it. It allows us to uncover our emotions and feelings towards it. We found that we felt dirty when getting dirty looks (as if someone “shot dirt” at us with their eyes).
The second research method we utilised was AEIOU, where we observe the Activities, Environment, Interactions, Objects and Users in a space. Each of us embarked to different places on campus, reconvening to share our insights. We attempted to capture dirty looks being exchanged.
↑ Each of us wrote a love letter and a break up letter dedicated to dirty looks.
↑ Notes from AEIOU research. My designated space was the smoking area by the entrance to LCC. My main notes were regarding looks exchanged between smokers and non-smokers.
Deriving insights from both methods, we found that the look may not have been intentionally judgmental, but was perceived as such. Additionally, we agreed that a wide range of parameters are involved when considering the impact of dirty looks: the relationship between participants, the context, emotions, values, personal background, culture, and many more. Dirty looks are often “triggered” due to one person violating another person’s societal norms.
This brought to mind Foucault’s analysis of Panopticism (1995). He suggested that in a society where individuals internalise expected behaviours, they become both prisoners of these behaviours as well as its guards, responsible for maintaining those norms in themselves and others. We concluded that dirty looks function as a mechanism of such self-regulation.
Drawing upon Mary Douglas’ definition of dirt as a “matter out of place” (1966), we discern that behaviours can be out of place and therefore be perceived as “dirty”. However, much like Douglas argues, the boundaries between clean and dirty are relative and differ from culture to culture.
Inspired by this direction, we ideated a board game:
In turns, one player will pick up a card from a pile. The cards list preferences regarding behaviours that can be perceived as dirty (for example, “re-wearing my jeans more than once without washing”). The other players then decide whether they personally think this behaviour is acceptable. If deemed unacceptable by them, players give a “dirty look” that equals to movement on the board.
We were advised to think of ways to expand this idea beyond the confinements of a board game, as well as keeping in mind the emphasis on an embodied experience.
↑ Leaning towards a humorous route, we decided to fashion the board after the phrase “you’re in the toilet”.
↑ Participants advance their figurines along the board towards a toilet seat.
↑ The cards included divisive statements around hygiene and cleanliness that evoke discussion.
↑ We distributed surveys across campus. Sadly, most of them were taken down before we could collect the results. We also realised being able to see previous votes might skew the results, so in our next iterations we kept voting secret and simultaneous.
Week 2
Inspired by games led by majority-rules tactics, we came up with an idea to have a group answer questions, against which a singular participant’s answer is compared.
We attempted one set of questions with a group of participants. However, we quickly figured that, bar a few particularly divisive questions, participants were mostly unbothered by being the odd ones out, or knew ahead of time that their answer would be unpopular. One example was the question regarding brushing one’s teeth after every meal. The active participant was the only one who voted yes, but said she’s only doing so due to her retainer, and wouldn’t have done it otherwise.
We surveyed 51 people regarding their personal preferences and ended up with a pool of 8 of the most divisive questions.
We added more stakes by creating an accumulative “dirt” particle that players belonging to each minority vote obtains, and the option for the minority to convince others to change their mind.
↑ Our first test with a group led us to understand we needed bigger stakes in the game for the “loser” to feel the embodied experience of dirt.
↑ We sent out a survey with 15 questions, choosing the ones that had split of votes closest to 50%.
With these iterations, we tested again with a larger group.
The group’s “loser” which accumulated the most dirt particles at the end of the round said he felt bad because he considered himself hygienic and didn’t understand how he ended up being the “dirtiest” one. At the end, other participants can collect dirt off of a player they felt was undeserving of it, thus “sharing the dirt” and showcasing that differences are acceptable.
Final Outcome:
↑ Each player gets a “Yes” and “No” paddle with which they vote.
Footage from testing:
↑ “Minority” voters accumulate dirt particles that covers them throughout the game. By the end of it, a single player might be covered with many dirty bits.
↑ At the end of the game, the player who accumulated the most “dirt” voiced his feelings about his result.
↑ Players have to reveal their answers to a question simultaneously.
↑ Players reveal their answers to a question.
↑ In one instance, the majority was flipped when a player was convinced to change her mind.
Feedback:
As the experiment was done within the classroom, it would have been beneficial if the players could move about the class and show their opinion in a clearer data physicalization, and perhaps have people who are unsure be convinced by members of each group. Additionally, we could have increased the stakes to get a “wrong” answer, like being expelled from the game.
Reflection:
I think given that most of the groups were cordial with each other, it affected participants feelings during the game. Additionally, some people who are naturally more vocal and opinionated tend to be more dominant in this kind of setting, regardless if their opinions were minority or majority. Overall, I think the exercise highlighted the relativity of dirt which we aimed to highlight. While the game could be more physically-led, we wanted it to create a discussion and shine light on habits we have that may be considered “dirty” or odd to the micro-society created within the participating group.
References:
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. 2nd edn. New York: Vintage Books.
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.