Today was my last lesson with Alan for this project and we briefly went through the project rationale (last post) before discussing the slide designs. Below are the notes from the lesson.
Content wise I thought about each of the 5 section headers to be questions. So for example, on the conflict slide the header may be, “Why do you assume conflict is bad”. I think this question is very intriguing and would get the user thinking very well about there experience and it would encourage deeper reflection. However at the same time it is a very assuming question and is a risk as it could be immediately received with a bad reception. Therefore I think that a head that is something like, “Is conflict bad” is more appropriate. It still poses the same question and encourages deep thought and reflection but at the same time it makes no assumptions on behalf of the user.
So we agreed that it would be good for each sections header to be a question but it needs to be phrased in a almost neutral sense so that it does not make assumptions that could be wrong but it still creates interest. I think this is best as obviously I am not aware of my users group work experience and each will be different (to some sense).
In terms of design I said in my notes I made prior to the lesson that I think because of the requirement for the users to think and reflect rather than just read, the slides need to be easy to digest. Therefore text and images, should remain coherent in their theme and position that ensures continuity and familiarity. If for example the positioning is different on each slide this will slow down read time. Alan acknowledged however that too much consistency could become repetitive which could lead to a loss of interest from the user.
So I am now at the point where I can draw up slides and start writing the content based on those initial 5 characteristics I identified at the beginning of the project.