Speakit is an intermodal messaging system that allows for the repurposing and re-appropriation of surfaces and privatized spaces by introducing guerilla communication. This system was specifically designed with the Vancouver 2010 Olympics in mind.

1. SPEAKIT
INTERMODAL MESSAGING SYSTEM.
CHING SHENG HUNG, KITTY ZHANG, JOEL RICH, ROSS PAPA

2. PROJECT BOUNDS
Create an object that has to do with the Olympics.

3. 1. AUDIENCE initial
Initially, we looked at the “anti-audience” to the Olympics which would be the
people protesting against the Olympics. But to maintain a wider possibility of
use, we specified our audience to people with any dissenting (and not
necessarily radical) views on the Olympics.

4. 2. RESEARCH METHODS
Rather than jumping straight to the whiteboard, we applied different research
methods to gather quantitative and qualititative information from our
proposed target audience.

5. cultural probe WEEK 1
During the first week, we launched our Cultural Probes. These
probes comprised of a Camera which was meant for keeping a
visual diary, a Map that would collect qualitative data from the
user in regards to how they feel about different areas in the city,
Envelops which they would fill with items indicative of
neighborhoods we label, a Blog where standard q&a would occur,
Political Cartoons to give us an imprint of their personality and
the Box which would give us an imprint of their creativity.

6. cultural probe results WEEK 2
The Cultural Probe results were varied and more importantly,
surprising. Alot of the misconceptions that we had about
our use group were cleared up. Our audience are intelligent,
social people whose views are slightly cynical (for example,
making fun of traditional protest methods) but still hopeful.
We found that the political cartoons gave us the best insight
on their point of view.

7. personas WEEK 3&4
We then synthesized this insight into our user group and
developed 2 personas, Jefferson and Helen. They would embody
the characteristics that we decided defined our audience. We
then compared and contrasted their personas to find similari-
ties or interesting conflicts. Our hope was that these overlaps
would define a design space to work in. These overlaps did, in
the end, inform many of our design decisions.
The surprising result of the persona work was that Jefferson and
Helen became part of the design team in the sense where we
would ask whether Jefferson or Helen would take part of, buy
into, or believe in the design ideas we come up with.

8. informances WEEK 5
Our informances then applied person to action and situation. We were
able to put ourselves into our audience’s shoes and potentially walk for
a moment in their lives. This helped us discover little interactions and
the finer details of communication and social connection that may
happen to our user group. The informances were also the first small
steps in regards to process and ideation where we tried to define a
specific problems and potential solutions.

9. scenarios WEEK 6
The Scenarios took the informances a step further and provoked us to bring our
informances into the light of further process. We took smaller social and
behavioral interactions and tried to map the cause-effect cycle that would take
place in these interactions. We ended up getting caught up in developing and
implementing a “What” with our informances and audience group which
constrained much of what could have developed. Instead of more specific and
possibly interesting situations, we came up with expediant solutions. The steps
we as a group will take afterwards will hopefully be reflective on this lesson.

10. RETROSPECTION post scenario
Instead of moving forward from our Scenario exercises, we went back and tried to digest
all the information that we’ve collected. We were having trouble grounding ourselves
into a solid design idea mainly because all the different bits of information were still
disparate and seemingly unconnected. So we went back to the whiteboard and looked at
past readings (like Dick Hebdige’s book “Subculture: the Meaning of Style”) to find some
connective fiber between the parts. This helped us ask more meaningful questions that
went past the stereotypic surface level which did help us start to explore the foundation
of the “why” questions we’ve been asking.

11. 3. DESIGN PROPOSAL initial
Our intention is to design a method to incorporate the opinions of people in
the system of the Olympic Games, thus possibly provoking discussion and
inclusion of all members of Vancouver.

12. 4. IDEATION PROCESS
We looked at defining our user more clearly and identifying more specifically
their needs and goals. From this we developed questions to put restraints on
our ideation process. We also defined important characteristics that are inline
with our user that would then be designed into the end product.

13. 4.1 AUDIENCE rede ned
Rather than using the term “Protester” since it carries with it alot of social
and cultural baggage, we moved to using the term “Social Commentator”.
We still used the cultural context in which our personas were developed but by
using the term Social Commentator, we open up the opportunity for a more
rounded discussion; one that would allow for both positive and negative
opinions to be expressed.

14. 4.2 WHY? Some Foundational Questions
1. Why would we give people a tool for motivation / influence
2. What tools/systems exist already
3. How can a tool enable people to be anonymous but unignorable
3a. Do people want to be anonymous?
4. Can a tool enable people to be visible.
5. How can a tool empower the grass roots level?
6. Can a tool provoke people to move beyond personal safety limits to
enact change.
7. How does our users interact with people they may not know
8. What kind of information do they want to share.

15. 4.3 Additional Research
INTERVIEW WITH A GRAFFITI ARTIST
- What time of day will people be implementing these objects?
“I usually go out at night so I don’t get seen. It also adds a level of mystery. A blank wall at
night all of a sudden becomes art in the morning”
- Appreciate the assortment of tools
“It’s good to see different tools for different purposes. It doesn’t make sense only having one
spray can tip”
- Speed
“The projector might take long to set up don’t you think? I’d want to be in and out in a couple
of minutes if not seconds”
- Sticker Subculture
“There aren’t alot of people that Sticker in Vancouver. I like Stickering, but I’m not sure if this
would fly”

16. 4.4 ELEMENTS OF THE END PRODUCT
Kinetic
Abilitiy to slip in and out of Anonymity
Comfort + Un-ignorability
Local, one-on-one, interpersonal interaction
Creative Misuse (scaffold, afford, and allow for creativity)

17. 4.5 DESIGN AS BRICOLAGE
From Hebdige’s “Subculture: The Meaning of Style”, explored the idea of
bricolage and it’s role in subcultures. We were directed to Panagiotis Louridas’
paper “Design as Bricolage: Anthropology Meets Design Thinking”. The
thoughts on bricolage outlined in the early part of the paper became a driving
force in the development of the project and helped develop a new analogy.

18. SOCIAL COMMENTATOR
AS BRICOLER
“The rule of his game is to always make do with what's available ”
(Louridas, 1999)

19. 4.6 METAPHOR
From this new analogy, we developed a metaphor for our design which then
propelled us into a flurry of possible forms.

20. Metaphor
THE ARTIST’S TOOLKIT
“He uses an inventory of semi-defined elements: they are at the same time abstract and concrete.
They carry a meaning, given to them by their past uses and the bricoleur's experience, knowledge and skill,
a meaning which can be modifed, up to a point, by the requirements of the project and the bricoleur's intentions”
(Louridas, 1999)

21. 6. DESIGN PROPOSAL rede ned
Our design involves developing tools (signifiers) that will reappropriate and
manipulate found materials to convey a Social Commentator’s point-of-view,
story, experience. In turn, hopefully provoking discussion and retrospection
within the recievers of the message.

22. 7. PROTOTYPES
We prototyped three tools that could possibly go into the toolkit as well as
“packaging”. The technology is based in future developments and may not
exist currently. This allowance was done so the fundamental ideas can have a
feasible manifestation without being overly restricted.

23. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Overview
The Lazertagger is a tiny programmable projector that can be installed onto most surfaces. There is an
infrared laser that acts as a switch. When the laser is broken, the projector would project a dot matrix
laser projection displaying the message of the Social Commentator onto buildings, statues, crowds and
people. The public space is then transformed from an unsable place or a place to sit or walk through, to a
space of connection between people within the public space and the thoughts of the Social Commentator.

24. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Digital Interface
The Lazertagger is a simple plug and play device that acts like a usb stick. The
interface is an input interface that allows for a preview of the message.

25. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Application
The Lazertagger comes with Sticky Tac. To attach the projector onto a surface, one would cover it with
the Sticky Tac and attach. The application onto a surface is meant to be quick and non-restrictive to
the movement which would give the user the ability to slip in and out of annonymity much more easily.
Thus giving the Commentator the ability to speak up and provoke discussion without necessarily
bringing attention to themselves.
PROJECTOR
INFARED LASER
ACTIVATION
STICKY TAC

26. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Functionality
The projector has a infrared laser that activates the projection. If it is pointed at a building or stationary object,
the infrared will be continuously tripped thus projecting constantly. The kinetic nature of people interacting with
the projector add a different dimension to it’s functionality. The activity of people in public spaces change
throughout the day which then adds another aspect of interaction, time.

27. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Crowd Interaction
A crowd of people can potentially act as a stationary object, thus constantly projecting the message. In this way,
the projected message is acting like a billboard, but instead of displaying banal advertisements, it’s displaying
moments of thought and point-of-views of real people. This can potentially take individuals out of the usual
crowd mentality of noticing advertisements but not paying attention to them to potentially being provoked and
starting an internal discourse.
CROWDCROWD CROWD CROWDCROWD
CROWDCROWD CROWD CROWDCROWD

28. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Crowd Interaction
A crowd of people can potentially act as a stationary object, thus constantly projecting the message. In this way,
the projected message is acting like a billboard, but instead of displaying banal advertisements, it’s displaying
moments of thought and point-of-views of real people. This can potentially take individuals out of the usual
crowd mentality of noticing advertisements but not paying attention to them to potentially being provoked and
starting an internal discourse.
?

29. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions
A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where
surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary
glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages
would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke
passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message.
ERSON PERSON
PERSON PERSON

30. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions
A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where
surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary
glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages
would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke
passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message.
PERSON
PERSON
?
PERSON PERSON

31. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions
A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where
surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary
glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages
would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke
passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message.
?
!
PERSO SON
N PER
PERSON ? ?
PERSON PERSON
PERSON

32. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions
A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where
surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary
glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages
would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke
passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message.
?

33. 7.2 ‘SCOT Overview
‘Soct is an inflatable art toy that is meant to bring attention away from the system and the icons of
the Games and stand as a representation of the people of Vancouver. It does this by symbolically
being a mascot for an individual.
6 feet

34. 7.2 ‘SCOT Interface
‘Soct’s interface is a vinyl plastic canvas. He is meant to be drawn on and customized in however way the user
desires thus standing as an artefact of the myriad of peoples and styles that is Vancouver. Paint and markers
would be the tradtional way to customize ‘Scot.

35. 7.2 ‘SCOT Functionality
After customizing ‘Scot, the user must deploy it. To mirror the kinetic nature of the Sticky Projector, ’Scot is
equiped with a rapid inflation device at it’s feet (also acting as anchors).

36. 7.2 ‘SCOT Interaction
Like the Sticky Projector, ‘Scot interacts both with person and place. The interaction with people is
immediate and evident. Some people may go up to ’Scot to take a closer look, take pictures with it, and
possibly talk to each other about it. The interaction with place is a little less evident unless many ‘Scots
are deployed. ’Scot can create a temporary, transient spaces defined by the personality, style and
presence of the people. In turn, reclaiming the space (possibly restricted and zoned only for Olympic
sanctioned events) back to the people from the system of the Games.

37. 7.3 ICON STICKERS
The Icon Stickers are an iteration of ‘Scot and symbols for the kit and the movement of people that the
kit attracts. Tthe Stickering culture in Vancouver is not prominent so the intention of this component is
mainly to act as a calling card for the movement. The hope is that it would spark a greater interest in
this art form because there is much creativity in Vancouver but little meaningful urban artefacts of it.

38. 7.3 THE MESSENGER BAG
The “packaging” of the overall kit is the Messenger Bag. When the kit is acquired, the tools will come in
the various messenger bags so to not brand the objects but still give them a distinguishable aesthetic.
We chose this particular bag for two reasons:
1. Since Anonymity is an element we planned to design into the kit, the Messenger Bag is a good candi-
date since it is a fairly ubiquitous bag.
2. The name “Messenger Bag” is a matches with the intention of the kit; the bag of a Messenger.

39. 7.4 SYNERGY
We specifically designed the different components in the kit to work together to hopefully
allow for a message that is bigger than the sum of its parts. 'Scot can be used as a surface
to be projected onto for the Lazertagger or as a mount for a Lazertagger to be fixed to. The
stickers use the iconography of 'Scot and are very effective as mini-'Scots or as way finding
tools to show people where Lazertaggers have been installed.

40. 8. IMPLICATIONS
Since our objects are interacting with people and public environments, we
much consider what the implications of these interactions are. A good lens to
understand these implications is through the effect on the Stakeholders; the
people being directly effected by these objects.

41. 8.1 PASSERS-BY Implications
Passers-by are both user and canvas in these interaction scenarios. A full
spectrum of reactions can be expected, from highly interested and interactive
to offended.

42. 8.1 AUTHORITIES Implications
The Authorities see the objects, primarily, as safety concerns. Firstly, the
projector potentially looks like a dangerous piece of technology (i.e. a bomb).
So the Lazertagger alone may set off some red flags and cause uneasiness
and distrust. ‘Scot may cause general annoynance thus componding the
stress of dealing with potential crowds of people and the system of the Games.

43. 9. WHAT DID WE LEARN?
e research methods were at rst, not the most exciting things to do. As they went
on, we realized how valuable it was to look into the patterns, habits and unique
mannerisms of the user. To take the Designer somewhat out of the equation so to
discover an interesting moment of need or fascination to then design in.
“ ere’s a world outside of the whiteboard”
Prototyping was an eye opener. Our initial misconceptions of prototyping was coming up with an
almost- nished version of an idea. e nish of the object was less important than the goal
of communicating an idea. At the end of the day, we didn’t really make anything but we believe that we
were successful in our prototyping process. We experimented a lot with di erent materials (shower
curtains, Sticky Tac, velcro) and found the importance of play and discovery in the prototyping process.
As a team, we agreed that the main thing we learned is that people are the point. e end artefact may end up being
really well rendered and the video may end up really slick with great music, but it’s really pointless if the person is lost
in the process. e world doesn’t need another designer that can pump out products and objects. We as designers
cannot be caught up in the glamour of the nal; we must be excited in the intermediate to achieve a meaningful end.

44. 10. APPENDIX
Videos, Research, Early Sketches, etc.

51. SOCIAL COMMENTATOR
AS BRICOLER
“The rule of his game is to always make do with `what's available’ ”
(Louridas, 1999)

52. SIGN
(in the terms of Semiotics)
POISON
SIGNIFIER: symbol; concrete SIGNIFIED: concept; abstract

53. SIGN
(in the terms of Semiotics)
DESIGN SPACE
We’re designing the means of conveying
the message, not the message itself
POISON
SIGNIFIER: symbol; concrete SIGNIFIED: concept; abstract

54. METAPHOR:
THE ARTIST’S TOOLKIT

55. THE TOOLBOX IS
SUBJECTIVE TO
THE MEDIUM

56. WHAT MEDIUMS DO THE
OLYMPICS BRING?
PHYSICAL SOCIAL
Glass Crowd
Metal Mascots
Wood Tourists
Fabric / Fur Media Coverage
Digital Environments Security
Venues
Vendors
the GAMES

57. DESIGN SPACE
REDEFINITION
We’re designing means of opportunites for retrospection and usage of found
materials to develop a signifier thus conveying the Social Commentator’s
point-of-view, story, experience.

58. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
WORKSHOP
RESULTS

59. 2 MAIN ACTIVITIES
DISCUSSION AND
BODY-STORMING

60. ENVIRONMENT
EXCITED AT FIRST, BUT CONCERNED DOESN’T FEEL
ABOUT MONEY USAGE
CONNECTED
CONCERNS

61. “IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW IT’S DEPLOYED, AS
LONG AS THE MESSAGE GETS OUT”
- MICHELLE

63. PITFALLS.
FROM “Effective Use Of Participatory Design Methods”
1. EXPECTING PARTICIPANTS WANT TO CONTRIBUTE
2. LETTING SMALL NUMBERS OF USERS GREATLY IMPACT
DESIGN
3. EXPECTING DOMAIN EXPERTS TO BE TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS