Detailed below is our postmortem.<\/p>\n
Project Thin Line is a mobile VR experience dealing with women\u2019s reproductive rights. Through the use of interactive narrative, we aimed to encourage healthcare providers to identify their biases towards women who had an abortion, evoke empathy, and raise discussion around this topic.<\/span><\/p>\n Being a pitch project, some parts of the pre-production happened before the semester started. For example, we knew that we are basing our design on previous prototypes, we already defined the barriers and goals, and we knew our medium. Even though we haven\u2019t started working on the actual product before the semester started we were ready to go and started playtesting in the first week. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Being set on the design and knowing that we\u2019re going to iterate on the details but not on the overall structure, allowed us to focus on figuring out those details and polishing them. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In our experience, we used the help of actors. The writing process took longer than it should (and I\u2019ll elaborate more on that) however, once we got to the recording sessions the script included 20 minutes worth of content for a 10 minute experience. That includes feedback and hints on how should players proceed written so to fit the story. Since we\u2019ve been playtesting constantly we were able to identify how much guidance people might need and incorporate that to the script. <\/span><\/p>\n Before the semester started we\u2019ve done research on various ways to encourage a change in perception. We looked into other transformational experiences such as Spent and Peacemaker. With the help of Jessica Hammer, we chose to follow Geoff Kaufman\u2019s research on perspective taking. That helped define our design. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This was a student pitch project, however, with the help of Drew Davidson we were able to partner with Kristen Kamp from the Ryan Program. In a way she served as a subject matter expert or as a connection to other subject matter experts. This topic, being sensitive as it is and in a way unapproachable, required a substantial amount of research and the need to have someone at hand to confirm that we are not straying away from realistic scenarios. Having Kristen helped significantly and reduced some of the workload. We held regular meetings with her and even though it felt time consuming sometimes it also meant that she was able to give feedback fast. She connected us with family planning residents, counselors, nurses, etc. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In addition to Kristen\u2019s help, we also read and watched as many pieces as possible about women\u2019s experiences with abortion from pro-choice and pro-life websites. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Throughout the semester, we held regular playtesting sessions in every single week from the very first week, and collected a huge amount of data on narratives, interactions, graphic design, etc., to help us development our experience. We playtested with ETC students, faculties, visitors, registered playtesters, and our target audience, the health care providers working with women who had abortions. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n We divided our playtests to three different types. The first was playtesting the story. This was usually done in paper playtest format. Players would sit next to a desk and were read segments of the text based on which objects they chose to interact with. We used that method throughout the semester to test the following: <\/span><\/p>\n From playtest to playtest we would update the story, change the phrasing, try new techniques in order to enhance the emotional connection. It helped us define where we should focus on. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The second type of playtest we had was centered around the interactions and the objects. The Google Daydream is relatively limiting with only gaze, voice recognition and a controller. Our goal was to balance between easy to understand but still interesting. These were done in VR and were meant to playtest the following: <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lastly, we sent out surveys. Those were used either to test different types of stories, gather information for brainstorming, or trying to understand others\u2019 perspective. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In total, we had 126 playtesters. We playtested almost every week until halves. It helped create milestones for us and gave us tools to move on to production. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Since we were playtesting almost every week, that also included a new prototype each week. Not playtesting the interactions on paper was the right decision. Those will never feel the same in VR and they are significant enough for the experience. The more the merrier. <\/span><\/p>\n For our main character and her story we wanted someone relatable but not an extreme case. We wrote several short stories and sent them out as surveys. Each story had different elements to it and they ranged from being young, alone, and unable to support yourself to being married with financial stability and not wanting children. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n We didn\u2019t choose one story of those but we did note what worked, what people liked, and what they hated. We also met with Geoff Kaufman, whose research we\u2019re basing our design on, who suggested we keep her a medical student to strengthen the in-group relationship and enhance the connection with our target audience, medical residents. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The story was composed of segments that could be listened to in any order (per room). They were the character\u2019s memories from each object she interacted with. A good idea was to define who is the character talking to and remember what she knows and what she doesn\u2019t. For some objects, she talked directly to them (Teddy bear, Ballerina) and for others, she ignored the object and talked about the memory itself (Pocket watch, notebook). <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The object themselves were chosen either based on the story or based on playtesting and the story was written after. Choosing the objects before the story allowed the designer and the programmer to start working on the interactions as the story was still in the works. Playtesting helped identify which objects people liked either because of they were unpredictable and therefore interesting or because they were fun to play with.<\/span><\/p>\n Towards the end of the pre-production phase, we made a technical decision to reform the existing system for the needs of a better structure, decoupling and debugging. We finished the current architecture in a week and it was running well since then. It provided us with:<\/span><\/p>\n Identifying the performance issues earlier in the process through playtesting allowed us to tweak the performance parameters, focus on draw calls and make decisions for how to render art before the production phase. <\/span><\/p>\n2. What went well (or what went right)<\/span><\/h1>\n
2.1. Pre-production<\/span><\/h2>\n
2.1.1. Research<\/span><\/h3>\n
2.1.2. Playtesting<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2.1.3. Prototyping<\/span><\/h3>\n
2.2. Development<\/span><\/h2>\n
2.2.1. Narrative<\/span><\/h3>\n
2.2.2. Programming<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
2.2.3. Design<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
2.2.4. Art<\/span><\/h3>\n