Hacking the campus, part II
In the first post about the Hacking the campus project we presented a challenge on how a greener, more accessible, funnier, safer, aesthetically more appealing university could look like after the Covid-19 pandemic, when we all meet again on campus. Using paper and cardboard the students designed artifacts to fit into the Södertörn University to make our campus a more sustainable place.
The students had two weeks to work on the assignment. In addition to the actual artifact the students handed in a written reflection where they reflected on the following questions:
· How easy, or difficult, did you find to create a paper artifact?
· What challenges did you face on a conceptual level regarding the design of abstract ideas and forming them with paper and cardboard? What logistical challenges did it entail to work with paper and cardboard as a material for the creation of the artifact?
· How did you work with the material for the task? How did it go to digitalise the artifact and place in an imaginary environment?
The result of Hacking the Campus
In total 52 assignments were handed in. All assignments consisted of images of i) a sustainable artifact (close ups, details, work in progress, final prototype), ii) of montage images of the designed artifact placed into the campus environment and of iii) the written reflection.
The designed artifacts were created from a range of different ideas and observations. For example, some were made with the purpose to reduce stress, others to promote mental and physical health, or to boots social gatherings and togetherness. The typology of these spans from artifact that are inspired by furniture that promotes meetings and social interaction, collective gardening areas, bird nests, litter containers, green houses, training equipment, tools to provide feedback, interactive screens and power stations both for bikes and phones.
In the below examples a Breathing mushroom and The lightening tree is shown.
Students’ reflections on the activity
In their assessment the students reflected on the challenges of working with paper and cardboard as a design material. The challenges they encountered include use of the material properties, getting the right scale, missing out on the right tools etc. One student commented on the use of paper for creating a physical manifestation as difficult as is idea generation.
“Creating the physical artifact from paper was as difficult as developing ideas, especially if you are not used to designing prototypes by using physical materials, but the work became easier and clearer with some sketches that showed how the artifact should look like.”
Other students found it easy to work with the material and expressed that they were surprised about how easy it was.
“Designing the sketch by hand gave me a clearer experience of how the artifact would feel by the users, in addition, I found it fun and not so difficult to use simple materials such as paper, corrugated cardboard boxes and a glue gun to shape my idea.”
Most of the students commented on the use of paper and cardboard, as both challenging and a joyful and fun experience.
“Working with paper was both a challenge and a joy. My artifact was relatively easy to create from paper, but it was important to find the right variety.”
”Working with the artifact has been both challenging and surprisingly fun. I have become familiar with paper and learned new techniques that I believe will benefit me in my design practice in the future.”
Challenges on designing conceptual abstract ideas in the concrete form of paper and cardboard were discussed by the students as both patience- and time consuming, in terms of making the design look like they wanted, and by discussing the difficulties to mold it in ways that is generally understandable and informative about the intended use.
“What I found challenging about creating the prototype was that it was time and patience consuming. It was difficult to design the prototype so that it looked the way I wanted. It also required calm to not to accidentally break the fragile material paper.”
“The main challenge was how to prototype the idea in paper in the best possible way to convey the concept in a serious way and make it easy for users to understand. My abstract perspective lay in combining and visualising the artifact in a realistic time and place, in the context of an ideal environment that could be arranged. The biggest limitations that arose after creating the paper prototype were that there is an entire campus where people’s opinions also must be included, a budget must be set, and an entire team in the organisation must implement this solution. The ultimate case would have been to observer the users in their natural environments such as in their homes, offices, schools, or training environment.”
Logistical challenges put to the fore by the students revolved around missing materials in their home environment, being afraid of going outside to buy the material wanted, or that the materials missing was too expensive to buy. Most students reflecting on this also wrote that they used other materials instead which did not work as good as expected in the first place.
”The design process of the artifact went very smoothly and I did not encounter many problems. The only problem I encountered was the lack of materials and tools. To create straighter lines in my artifact, I would have needed a cardboard knife, because I did not have it, I had to use the scissors, which also worked. Another tool I was missing was a glue gun, which meant that I had to use transparent tape instead.”
Other aspects put to the fore were the logistical challenges of handling the fragile material as paper can be. Several students described incidents where they have destroyed their prototypes while trying to move them around or when they were using tools trying to shape them.
“Logistical challenges with paper are that it is fragile, it is possible to move easily if you have not done anything with it, but if you made an artifact of the paper it is usually fragile and difficult to move, for me it went well because I had a station which I was working on but I was still affected when I needed to move it.”
The digitalisation of the artifact to include it in a digital photo montage was also described as two folded by the students. Some students that mentioned difficulties in getting the right scale, highlighted as important to make the artifact look real and blend into the setting and imagery. Others mentioned lacking images they needed given that due to COVID-19 pandemic it was not possible to go on the campus area,
“Digitising the artifact and placing it in the imaginary environment was the most interesting part of the process, as it evoked a more realistic vision. In addition, visualisation of the artifact created a more real-world scenario of the artifact in connection with the intended environment and users.”
“What does not become clear in my environmental images in digitalisation is the interaction, which mainly consists of looking at, or perhaps, tasting an edible plant, as well as joy and community. It does not work because I do not have any students in the environmental pictures.”
Finally, the following quote can be used to illustrate the challenge of the task in a broader perspective. The student expresses what several others also mentioned in their reflections about the task: that is the lack of opportunities of going at campus to be able to see the physical space they have been asked to hack:
“I started this task uphill as we have not been to school for so long, it has been a challenge to get acquainted with the school environment and see what could be improved.”
This text was written by Sofia Lundmark, Emma Blomquist and Romina Rodela.
To see more about the student’s reflections, please look at the video created around this activity:
In the next post we will share some reflection on Hacking the campus project. Stay tuned!
