TEAM: Daniela Navaes | Jing Zhao | Jordy Tam | Nathassha di Pasquale

As a deliberate choice, and also based on some of our findings after last week’s experiment, we’ve decided to pursue the topic of creating a system of value around digital information. To do that, we needed to investigate what are people’s current perceptions about it, and how would they behave with the introduction of the possibility of owning and exchanging their digital data.

But first we did a bit more of desk research in order to get a sense of what kind of technology is available that links together the concepts of value, ownership, exchange and digital data.

With that, we found out about the “Hub-of-all-things” (HAT, for short). It is a “legal, economical and technological artefact (The HAT microserver) capable of storing, processing, transforming and exchanging personal data, that also assigns a set of rights to the data to the individuals themselves”. (Irene, 2018)

So we picked up some of the principles used to design the HAT, derived from the economic properties of data as a digital good, to validate our direction and guide our research. According to Irene (2018) those principles are:

For data ownership:

Principle 1 of Data as a Co-Produced Good
Principle 7of Data as Store of Value

For data value:
Principle 4 of Infinite Expansibility
Principle 6 of Data Derivatives

For data exchange:
Principle 3 of Non-Rivalrous Consumption
Principle 8 of Data as a Medium of Exchange

After that, we’ve brainstormed until we arrived in the concept of creating a board game to explore those concepts. It is a prototype that falls into the role category of prototypes proposed by Houde and Hill (1997), since it explores current behaviours and hypothetical behaviours in new scenarios. The guiding principles for the creation of the prototype were:

What this experience is providing players with:

  • To reveal the amount of information they give away and how that information correlates with the platform being used and other entities; 
  • To use the materiality of the phone to deliver a more powerful message;
  • To reflect on the value of the information;
  • To enable potential data ownership and observe behaviours around it;
  • To enable potential data exchange and observe behaviours around it.

What we hope to achieve:

  • To gain insight on peoples’ current behaviours and beliefs around their personal digital data;
  • To identify design opportunities within their insights about hypothetical behaviours considering new scenarios of data ownership and exchange.
Design Process

After some peer review and early testings, we’ve made some modifications and additions to it in order to get more insights from the actual testings for next week.


Game elements



Houde, S. and Hill, C., 1997. What do prototypes prototype?. In Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 367-381). North-Holland.

Ng, Irene C. L., 2018. Can you own your personal data? The HAT (Hub-Of-All-Things) data ownership model. Working Paper. Coventry: Warwick Manufacturing Group. WMG Service Systems Research Group Working Paper Series (02/18).



TEAM: Daniela Navaes | Jing Zhao | Jordy Tam | Nathassha di Pasquale

Since the notion of “systems of value” is central to the brief, we had a few discussions about how we could get people’s input on that. We then came up with an experiment in order to understand what parameters people use to determine how much perceived value an object has. More specifically, we wanted to investigate three questions:

  • What are the systems of values that people associate with used/personal objects?
  • How do stories and narratives affect the perceived value of an object?
  • Are there subjective differences between the exchange value (cost) and the use value (practical and personal meaning) of an object?

First, between ourselves, we selected two personal items that have high personal meaning for us.


We wrote the stories behind these objects that explain why they are meaningful to us and high in personal value. We also determined the cost value of each of these objects. Based on these two parameters, we set up a chart.

Screen Shot 2019-05-06 at 17.28.16

For our own reference, we placed our own objects in the scale accordingly.

Then, we set up a room with two charts and made cards out of the objects so we’d test how other people would rate the same objects, as in what was their perceived personal value (for the owner) and cost value of them. First, they would do it without any information about the object, and then we’d reveal the story and the cost of the objects and see how would their perception if the objects changed. Then we’d reveal the positions in which the owners placed the objects and observed their reactions.

The results were interesting and somewhat unexpected. We also asked people what are two objects of their own possession that they would put on extreme high value and no value. Among other things, one of our key findings throughout the whole experiment is that high value is strongly related to time (as in how old something is) and information (as in memories and stories shared with other people).

We’ll use that as a prompt to our next steps. Next week, we’ll be narrowing down our investigations into the value of information, more specifically, digital information.

Micro UX – Week 1 | Breaking down the brief

TEAM: Daniela Navaes | Jing Zhao | Jordy Tam | Nathassha di Pasquale

On the first week of Micro UX we dedicated ourselves to fully understand the brief, since it is a broad and abstract one. The representatives from Made by Many came in on Tuesday to present themselves and the company. Their expectations from us are that our process is human centric all throughout, and that our final design is feasible within the technologies we have available now, ideally also having a commercial edge. As a group guideline, we added the requirement that the project also has an evidenced impact.

Screen Shot 2019-04-28 at 10.30.08

Another key takeaway from them is the methodology MAKE > TEST > LEARN, which we will be applying throughout our whole journey.

So then we came together and read the brief to break it down. From it, we understood that there are three key concepts to work with: ownership, system of values and system of exchange.

That lead us to the following guiding questions, as a guide to how to research these topics:

  • What constitutes a financial transaction?
  • What defines a system of value?
  • How do you create value?
  • What is ownership?
  • What is money?
  • What is the history of money/cash/currency?
  • What are crypto-currencies, high-frequency trading, just-in-time principles to finance?

For that I read some chapters of “The History of Money” (Weatherford, 1997) and “Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism” (Harvey, 2014).

So then we did some literature review to answer these questions, and so far our key learnings from this process are the following:

  • Value ≠ values
  • Value can be objective and subjective
  • Ownership  ->  Access
  • External factor affecting value

Alongside with that, we also brainstormed ideas of what activities we should do next week for the first part of the field research. We agreed on elaborating a co-design workshop, but will deliberate more on that after the feedback on the presentation on Monday.


Den Ouden, E. (2011). Innovation design: Creating value for people, organizations and society. Springer Science & Business Media.
Donovan, K., 2012. Mobile money for financial inclusion. Information and Communications for Development, 61(1), pp.61-73.
Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rifkin, J. (2001). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism. Penguin.
Shehu, A.Y., 2004. The Asian alternative remittance systems and money laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 7(2), pp.175-185.
Vieira Cardoso, A. (2015). Art, finance and the perception of value. [online] Market For Immaterial Value. Available at: http://www.marketforimmaterialvalue.com/discussion-1/ [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
Weatherford, J. (1997). The History of Money. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
Boritzer, E. and West, J. (n.d.). What is money?.



Physical model of final design

Our final design was a temporary installation in partnership with a museum in London, such as the V&A. The exhibition consists on four individual rooms for the experience, with a big common room afterwards containing information about cybersecurity and Chatham House.
We’ve also designed a small booklet as an example of how Chatham House could adapt their approach to a younger audience by the choice of a more direct speech. The booklet would invite them to an open day and offer special membership deals that are more attractive for students.

Presenting in class


Presenting at Chatham House

In addition to presenting in class, we were also invited to present our final proposals to Chatham House themselves. The overall feedback was that they were very impressed with our outcomes, and were genuinely interested in our thoughts about how they could improve their communication strategies in order to achieve younger audiences.



Last week we presented our final model to the Chelsea Physic Garden.

The presentation consisted in quickly slowing our entire process condensates into two minutes. First we mentioned the area of the garden that we focused on (the cool furnary), the concept of evolution that it brings and how we used it to build our concept on. Then we showed the medical plant that we chose (Artemisia annual) proceeding on illustrating the general idea of the installation, the physical prototype and the ways to interact with it.

Overall they really liked the idea of bringing awareness that medicines are made of plants. They also liked the relationship that we made between that and the consequences of pollution and climate change, and that we brought up the digital element via Instagram, a popular platform that would help spread the concept and the garden.



After having defined our theme and made some storyboards, we decided to build a prototype to simulate the experience. So first, on the previous night Lara got together with her roommate, a fine arts student, to get feedback on the idea and how it could be improved.

Screen Shot 2019-03-04 at 12.26.29.png

Lara’s roommate providing feedback on the idea

I, on the other hand, researched about actual medicines that use artemisinin, the chemical compound extracted from the Sweet Annie plant, so we could base our packaging designs similar to the real life ones.


We build the prototype to demonstrate how the physical experience would be like. We also thought about the before and after, but will focus on simulating and explaining those parts next week.



In order to test our assumptions and the efficiency of the message we intend to pass with this experience, it was fundamental to build an actual room with the basic elements for the user testings. So we used the room next door to our studio and created a “student room” atmosphere: a table with a notebook on, some books and a bed. There were two versions of the room: an early one, containing nothing but only the basic elements, and a second one, with modifications based on users inputs, with extra decorative elements to feel more cozy and warm. Reflecting upon it and making a parallel with Houde’s (1997) paper “What do prototypes prototype”, our main goal was to test the “look and feel” of the system and the ambiance, since we were most interested in the emotional responses of our users, and whether to not they would match our assumptions.

First version of the room

Second version of the room

For the second round of testings we also modified the endings, making it more dramatic and explicit in which ways their data was stolen, hopefully making the experience feel a bit more personal.

Second version of the ending: more dramatic and explicit

Overall we were very pleased with the results, as our assumptions turned out to be correct and we have achieved the emotional responses we were looking for.

COLLAB. PROJECT – WEEK 3 | Physical Model, evaluation of design research Methods & reflection upon collaboration

External Partner: Chelsea Physic Garden | Project Partner: Lara Biagini
physical model

To show our classmates about the area we were most interested about in Chelsea Physic Garden we made a physical model to be represented.

Since the concept of the room is evolution, we used that same theme to brainstorm how could we relate it with the brief, which asks us to design a new way for a new audience to access the living archive of medicinal plants at the garden.


Two concepts – we chose the second one

The cool furnary of CPG brings the topic of evolution of life on Earth and the fundamental role of simple species of plants for the development of more complex life forms. We will design an installation that allows us to see the evolution of science and medicine in human life, and what could be in for the future. Will climate change endanger the plant species that enable us to continue our progress?

To get there our design research methods used were sensory experience of the room – and further reflection on its sensory aspects -, physical model making and literature review – on the relationship between climate change and the growth of diseases. While the model allowed us to demonstrate sensory aspects of the room, the literature review was fundamental to strengthen our point across and make the connection between both topics.

At the end of the day, were asked to reflect upon the whole process of collaboration so far. The first diagram represents the collaboration between me and Lara, while the second one is a representation of all the configurations of the students since day one.

The most important point about collaboration in my understanding is that it is a state of mind rather than a set of actions. It involves a genuine interest in what others have to say, the ability to make constructive criticism and the willingness to relinquish egoistical tendencies in favor of own ideas.

MACRO UX – WEEK 7 | Interaction design, interface design, prototyping and information architecture

TEAM: Tiffany Chau | Coco Li | Yu Qin | Daniela Navaes

Information Architecture

Most of the work this week went towards creating the interactive system in which the player will interact with. For the prototype, we created the information architecture for the closed system that will simulate a computer desktop with access to internet in which the player will be able to perform the tasks given.

For the purpose of prototyping and testing, as well as within the constraints of a week time, we designed a single webpage on Wix with the flow as depicted in the image above. In a real life ideal situation, this same system would be simulated in a fully developed mini-game software, perhaps with a less linear workflow to allow a more realistic virtual environment.

We will use the small room beside our studio to build the prototype and do the testings.

COLLAB. PROJECT – WEEK 2 | Visit to Chelsea Physic Garden

External Partner: Chelsea Physic Garden | Project Partner: Lara Biagini

It was a sunny Friday afternoon when we went to visit Chelsea Physic Garden.

First we were free to take a stroll and look around, and then had a guided tour to their indoor and outdoor collections.

The indoor collection consist of catalogued artwork of many plant species, as well as books, some of which are dated to the 1400s and impressively well conserved.

The outdoor collection, as one can imagine, is plants, from simple tubercles to highly sough after medicinal plants and herbs. Even though it is currently winter and many of the plants are in hibernation mode (with the exception of the ones in the greenhouses, of course), the variety is impressive.


We will work on this project in duos, so my partner Lara and I got a special interest in an area of the garden that was not explored on the guided tour: the “Cool Furnary”. In there, they raise plants that are closely related to the first plants that existed on Earth, and correlate the upbringing of these plants to evolution of life. We found that content to be very interesting, poetic and under explored, so we decided we would base our work on it.

Bellow there is a video of their own simulation of what is imagined to be the “primordial soup”, the conditions that allowed unicellular individuals to evolve to multicellular and so on, along with a timeline of the evolution of life.




Create your website with WordPress.com