IN OUR WORKSHOP IN Veszprém WE WANTED TO IDENTIFY THE GAPS BETWEEN THE PARAMETRIC SYSTEM OF EVALUATING COMMON AREAS TO THE HUMAN VERSION - THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF.
THE FIRST STEP WAS TO CHOOSE A PERSONA TO IDENTIFY WOTH FOR THE EXPERIMENT. WE CHOSE THIS METHOD TO ELIVIATE PRIVACY AND DATA SHARING ISSUES. WE PRESENTED THE PARTICIPANTS WITH 5 PERSONAS TO CHOOSE FROM, RANGING IN AGE, GENDER AND INTERESTS.
USING AN ONLINE FORM-FILLING SYSTEM WE COULD COLLECT AND ANALYSE THE PARTICIPANTS' DATA AS SOON AS IT WAS FED INTO THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THE FIRST THING WE LEARNT WAS THAT PEOPLE PREFER WALKING AROUND IN GROUPS. AS MUCH AS WE VALUE THE DISCUSSIONS, WE ALSO AIM TO FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL INTUITIVE RESPONSES, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS THAT IN OUR FUTURE workshop EXPERIMENTS.
BEFORE WE ALL WENT TO EXPLORE THE COMMONS AROUND THE CONFERENCE, EACH PARTICIPANT HAD TO CHOOSE THE TOP THREE VALUES THAT BEST REPRESENT THE PERSONA HE CHOSE FOR THE EXPERIMENT, AND RATE THEM BY IMPORTANCE. THE VALUES WERE PHYSICAL AND CONCEPTUAL - CREATING A RANGE OF OPTIONS FOR PERSONAL EVALUATION. AS THE GRAPHS SHOW, THE PARTICIPANTS MADE VARIED CHOICES FOR THEIR PERSONAS, BUT WALKABILITY WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ONE OF THE TOP THREE VALUES OF CHOICE. WE SHOULD MENTION THAT MOST OF THE WORKSHOPS' PARTICIPANTS WERE PRACTITIONERS IN THE FIELD OF ARCHITECTURE OR URBAN PLANNING.
WE RECEIVED DATA FROM OUR TOURING PARTICIPANTS REGARDING TEN DIFFERENT GRID SQUARES. THE MAP IS ALSO A PART OF OUR CODE'S OUTPUTS, STRETCHING EXACTLY AS FAR AS A 15-MINUTE WALK FROM THE CONFERENCE CENTER. THE MAP WAS HANDED TO EVERY PARTICIPANT, AND THEY HAD TO IDENTIFY THEIR GRID LOCATION BEFORE COMPLETING THE QUESTIONERE. THE RESULTS SHOWED THAT MOST PARTICIPANTS GRAVITATED TO THE G5 SQUARE AND THE I6 SQUARE.
OUR QUESTIONNAIRE ALLOWS US TO GET AN OVERALL RATING OF every square BY PERSONA AND REFLECTS THE individual scores that each one of THE TOP VALUES WAS GIVEN.
G5 SITE EVALUATION
I6 SITE EVALUATION
THE PURPOSE OF THE TOUR WAS FOR US TO LEARN FROM THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF OUR USERS AND DEEPEN THE FLEXIBILITY AND RANGE OF OUR PARAMETRIC DIAGNOSTIC MODEL.
WE PRESENTED THE PRE-MADE EVALUATION, THE RESULT OF OUR PARAMETRIC MODEL FOR EACH SQUARE. THIS EVALUATION WAS MADE BY USING A WEIGHED PARAMETIC CODE THAT WAS ADJUSTED TO EACH OF THE PERSONAS OF THE EXPERIMENT, BASED ON PREVIOUS STUDIES THAT WERE CONDUCTED IN THIS FIELD.
AFTER COLLECTING ALL THE RESULTS WE HAD THE CHANCE TO DISCUSS AND FIND OUT HOW THE PARTICIPANTS BASED THEIR RESULTS. WE WERE THRILLED TO FIND OUT THAT EVEN IF WE GOT CLOSE TO PREDICTING THE END RESULT, OUR ANALYTICAL SYSTEM WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM OUR PARTICIPANTS' ON-SITE TOOLS FOR EVALUATION.
THIS TAUGHT US SO MUCH AND ALREADY OUR CODE IS GETTING SHARPER AND FEEDS OF MORE FIELDS OF DATA TO CLOSE IN ON THESE GAPS. WE CAN'T WAIT FOR OUR NEXT WORKSHOP! ALL THE DATA WE'RE COLLECTING IS USING US TO GET BETTER AT PREDICTING THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT CITY USERS AND CONSUMERS, AND WE'RE EXCITED TO KEEP GOING AND FIND OUT MORE.
HELP US GET TO THE NEXT STAGE OF OUR STUDY - CREATING THE COMMONCATALOGUE: A CUSTOM PROBLEM-SOLVING ALGORITHM FOR IDENTIFYING AND MAPPING OUT ACTION VECTORS FOR MAKING OUR COMMONS BETTER FOR US!