The PEP

Creating and evaluating a user centered speculative design
that aims to trigger discussion around the consequences of
technology on mental health

Master’s thesis in Interaction Design and Technologies

JENS HULTEBERG & VENDELA STENSON

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG
Gothenburg, Sweden 2021





Master’s thesis 2021

The PEP

Creating and evaluating a user centered speculative design that aims
to trigger discussion around the consequences of technology on

mental health

JENS HULTEBERG & VENDELA STENSON

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology

University of Gothenburg
Gothenburg, Sweden 2021



The PEP
Creating and evaluating a user centered speculative design that aims to trigger
discussion around the consequences of technology on mental health
JENS HULTEBERG & VENDELA STENSON

© JENS HULTEBERG & VENDELA STENSON, 2021.

Supervisor: Mafalda Samuelsson-Gamboa, Department of Computer Science and
Engineering
Advisor: Sara Renström, RISE Interactive
Examiner: Staffan Björk, Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Master’s Thesis 2021
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Telephone +46 31 772 1000

Cover: An infographic showing the PEP and some of its use-cases.

Typeset in LATEX
Gothenburg, Sweden 2021

The PEP
Creating and evaluating a user centered speculative design that aims to trigger
discussion around the consequences of technology on mental heath
JENS HULTEBERG & VENDELA STENSON
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg

iv



Abstract
In an increasingly digitalized and connected world it appears important to cultivate
healthy and constructive relationships between humans and technology. In this the-
sis, a speculative design has been created and evaluated with the aim of triggering
discussions around the consequences of technology on mental health among young
adults. The thesis investigates if a prominent user centered focus could enrich a
speculative design so that it appeals to the general public and specifically to young
adults. A thorough user study was conducted and the target group was constantly
considered throughout the whole project process. The final speculative design is
a wearable that harvests the user’s body heat in order to generate electricity in a
fictional future where electricity is scarce and society does not want to give up the
comforts of technology. The evaluation proved that the speculative design clearly
connected to the target group due to aspects of the product that was based on
the user study. This validates that the user centered approach did enrich the de-
sign. Continuing, the result shows a rich data set on the target groups opinions,
dreams and fears for the future of technology in relation to mental health as well as
discussions on different aspects of design that the user group appreciates.

Keywords: Speculative design, Wearable, user-centered design

v



Acknowledgements

We would like to thank:

Our supervisor Mafalda Samuelsson-Gamboa for her being ever present with guid-
ance, inspiration and input through the project.

Sara Renström from RISE for her insightful feedback and creative input.

Peter Ljungstrand from RISE for getting us on the path that led to this project.

The many interviewees and workshop participants for sharing their experiences and
helping us gather invaluable user data.

Siw Eriksson for her help with prototyping materials and workshops.

The psychologists for taking the time to talk to us and helping us get a deeper
understanding of psychological issues.

Friends and family for interest and support through the project.

This project would not be the same without you, thank you all for your support.

Jens Hulteberg & Vendela Stenson, Gothenburg, January 2021

vi





viii



Contents

0.1 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Introduction 3
1.1 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Delimitations & Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Background 7
2.1 Research problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 RISE project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Research area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.1 Related design research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2 Mental health and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.3 Earlier work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Theory 11
3.1 User-Centered Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.1 Double Diamond Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2 Co-design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2 Speculative Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1 Speculative Design approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3 Wicked Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Methodology 17
4.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Sensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 Co-design workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5 Collage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6 KJ Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.7 Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.8 The Thing from the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.9 Future Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.10 Weighted matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.11 Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.12 Seven Foundations model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ix



Contents

4.13 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.14 Bodystorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.15 Auto Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.16 Co-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Execution and Process 23
5.1 Empathize and define . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.1.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.2 Co-design workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1.3 Transcribing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.4 KJ technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.5 Result from empathize and define stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.1.5.1 Result from psychologist interviews . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.1.5.2 Result from user study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.5.3 Result from workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.6 Takeaways from empathize and define stage . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Ideate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.2.1 Internal ideation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.2 Concretization and idea selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.3 Result from ideate stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.4 Takeaways from the ideate stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.3 Prototype and storify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3.1 Lo-fi prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3.2 Body storming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3.3 Hi-fi prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3.4 Storify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.4 Test/Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6 Final Results 61
6.1 The final concept - PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.1.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1.2 Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1.3 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.4 Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.1.5 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.1.6 Speculative Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6.2 Evaluation result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.1 Relatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.2 Destructive phone use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.3 Social interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.4 Interface and interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2.5 Level of human/machine integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.2.6 Environmental aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2.7 Politics and state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2.8 Visibility and aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.2.9 Conformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.3 Analysis of result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

x



Contents

6.4 Evaluation of the website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.5 Answering the research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7 Discussion 79
7.1 Process and execution discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

7.1.1 Co-speculating with target group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.1.2 Working with the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.1.3 Ideating user-centered speculative design . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

7.2 Result discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.3 Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7.4 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

8 Conclusion 85

Bibliography 89

A Appendix 95
A.1 Interview template for user interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
A.2 Result from target group interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
A.3 Result from workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A.4 Result from team ideation and concretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A.5 Scenarios Imaginary Employer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
A.6 Scenario/future user journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A.7 Evaluation result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
A.8 Product website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

xi



Contents

xii



List of Figures

2.1 The Hawkeye design probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Example of website used in evaluation session in Problematising Up-

stream Technology through Speculative Design: The Case of Quan-
tified Cats and Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 The Double diamond model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 example of a simplified speculative design approach . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.1 The Thing from the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 The 7 foundation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.1 The project process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2 The questions of the Quiz Walk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3 The co-creation workshop in action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4 The digital co-creation workshop in action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5 The KJ analysis for the user group data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.6 The first couple of items on the 31 home brew future scan list. . . . . 39
5.7 Template of the Imaginary Employer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.8 Infographic showcasing the experience of using the Digital Jammer . 43
5.9 Infographic showcasing the experience of using the Communal Com-

puter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.10 Infographic showing the data urn before and after excavation. . . . . 45
5.11 Infographic showcasing the Electric Clothing concept . . . . . . . . . 46
5.12 Early prototype of the body sock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.13 An early prototype of the artifact with an unsymmetrical shape. . . . 50
5.14 Body storming cable management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.15 The final prototype in the making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.16 Iterations on the battery box. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.17 The 7 foundations map developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.18 Snapshot of the website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.1 A person using the PEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2 Infographic showing the interaction of the artifact. . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3 Inforgraphic showing different social activities the PEP facilitates. . . 63
6.4 Two users charging together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

xiii



List of Figures

A.1 The top of the web-page used for promoting the PEP. Showing use
cases and interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

A.2 Part of the web-page focusing on setting and socialization. . . . . . . 132
A.3 Part of the web-page describing the company and the FAQ. . . . . . . 133

xiv



List of Tables

5.1 The participants of the psychologist expert interviews . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 The participants of the target group interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3 Workshop structure and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4 The 13 categories that were the basis for the weight matrix . . . . . . 41
5.5 The weight matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.6 The participants of the evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

xv



List of Tables

xvi



List of Tables

0.1 Glossary
• Speculative design - The design practice of creating artifacts for critique

and provocation rather then economical gain or functionality. The artifacts
are often based in alternate realities. The practice has much in common with
other practices like critical design, design fiction, discursive design and design
probes.

• Mental health - Mental health is not only the absence of mental problems
but also the presence of positive mental attributes. Mental health therefore
also encompasses to be aware of ones worth and abilities, as well as the ability
to cope with the ups and down of a normal life. Furthermore, the term en-
compasses the ability to work productively and contribute positively to ones
community [1].

• Mental disorder - Mental disorder is a broad term with a wide array of
causes and effects. Generally mental disorders are a combination of abnormal
thoughts, emotions, behavior and relationships. The term includes depression,
bipolar disorder, psychosis, dementia and mental development disorders [2].

• Digital native - Describes a person that has grown up in the digital age and
knows the "digital language". The terms is contrasted by Digital immigrant a
person who has learned to use technology later in life [3].

• FOMO - Abbreviation for Fear Of Missing Out. It refers to a social angst
that stems from the fear that other people in ones social sphere are aware of
and taking part of in activities that one self is not privy to [4].

1



List of Tables

2



1
Introduction

In a faster and more connected world, technology has integrated itself into a major
part of our lives. Parallel to this we have seen an increase in mental disorders
in the western world. Out of the Northern countries this negative trend is most
severe in Sweden [5]. We believe that the growing mental health disorders are
partly caused by the growing digitalization and constant access to the internet. As
there is little indication of a future decrease in digital impact on our life, we believe
that if not addressed today this might lead to bigger consequences in the future.
The digitialization of our everyday life has happened so fast that we believe we
lack important critical frameworks to handle the constant flow of information. We
believe that we need to cultivate a critical thinking towards technology in order to
engage with it in a more constructive way. We need to understand why we want to
have a digital world.

We hope that by using speculative design to tackle these problems we will get a
solid basis to trigger discussion on the topics at hand. By using speculative design
we both address the problem today and hopefully prevent aspects of it that are to
come. Speculative design is a fitting approach as it by definition deals in fiction
and the evaluation of technologies of the future[6]. However, speculative design has
often been criticized for being too elitist or too academic. The practice runs the
risk of being confined to museum exhibit or other academic settings and not truly
connect to the broader public[7]. In relation to related research on the subject our
aim was to make speculative design with a more active user focus. The hope was
that this would create a design more suited for a specific target group.

1.1 Hypothesis
We believe people seldom reflect on the impact of technology. In the western world,
technology is rarely seen as an alternative but rather as a constant of life. We believe
that speculative design could be an appropriate tool to trigger reflective thinking
around these issues, as it by its very nature deals with scenarios alternate to the
status quo and thus critical thinking about our current way of life. Continuing, we
believe that young adults will be a good reference point for a study that aims to
evaluate mental health and technology as they are a target group well versed in the
subject and that lives very close to technology in general.

Lastly we believe that a user-center approach to speculative design can be beneficial
in order to have greater impact on a target group. By conducting rigorous investi-

3



1. Introduction

gation into the user groups preferences as well as activating the user group directly
with co-design workshops we hope that the final artifact will appeal to them and
thus be effective as a discussion starter.

1.2 Research questions
• In what ways can a user centered design approach enrich a speculative design?
• What should be considered when designing future products regarding issues

of the impact of technology on mental health among young adults?

1.3 Delimitations & Limitations
As the project mainly deals with the use of speculative design we will not put em-
phasis on the psychological aspects of the subject at hand. Some initial investigation
will be done into the field in order to better understand the subject of mental health
and avoid common pitfalls. However the subject of mental health is extremely com-
plex and, as designers, we are not truly equipped to contribute much to the field.
Thus, the project will have a generally simplified version of the subject based on
expert knowledge gained through literature review and interviews. We will not try
to present an answer to the question of the negative effects of digitalization.

We are also limiting the project to focusing on western society. More specifically
Sweden and young adults aged 16-25. This because they are digital natives that live
lives completely permeated by technology. This makes them ideal and important
for a study that handles technology and mental health. Continuing, as our project
runs parallel to RISE’s project that also has a focus on Swedish society it seems
appropriate to have that same focus and target group as them.

Lastly, this project was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic which affected
the project in several ways. Therefore, all target group interviews and one of the
workshops had to be conducted through a digital medium which was not optimal.
Also, the final evaluation had to be conducted digitally as well and thus we needed
to rethink the evaluation setting. This complicated the evaluation of the interactive
aspects of the speculative design.

1.4 Stakeholders
This section describes the different stakeholders involved in the project and how
they will shape and affect the our goals and methods.

Chalmers University of Technology
Chalmers has several requirements and guidelines that will shape the project and
the final report. Chalmers provides an examiner and an academic supervisor. The
supervisor will provide guidance during the project.

4



1. Introduction

University Students
As a master’s thesis it is not unlikely that this report will be read by other students
going through the same process as we are currently. In order to help them the same
way that other reports has helped us we will aim to structure the report in such a
way that information we believe relevant to future students will be easy to find.

RISE Interactive
RISE Interactive is a part of RISE which mainly focuses on research into interaction
design. Our project will run parallel to one of RISE’s projects but no specific
deliverables has been decided upon. Instead both parties (RISE and us) hope to
exchange valuable insight and knowledge into the fields of mental health, technology
and interaction design.

Young adults
Our main target group is young adults aged 16-25. They are part of Generation
Z - people born from approximately 1995 to 2010 - digital natives that have been
exposed to the internet, social media and mobile systems from a very young age
[8]. As they are heavily involved in the project it is important that we conduct our
research without in any way mentally hurting the user group.

The team
The team consist of two students at Chalmers University of Technology from the
same bachelor program (Industrial Design Engineering) but different masters pro-
grams (Interaction Design and Industrial Design Engineering). This project marks
the ending point of both of our masters degrees. Thus we aim to, as far as we are
capable, produce stellar work showcasing our capabilities and expertise. Further-
more we both aim to produce a report of academic value, an artifact of high quality
and conduct a project we are proud to put in our portfolios.

5



1. Introduction

6



2
Background

This chapter aims to give the reader a better understanding of the research problem,
project background and research area. The chapter also describes relevant earlier
projects that relate to similar themes and methodology.

2.1 Research problem
In an increasingly digitalized and connected world it appears important to cultivate
healthy and constructive relationships between human and technology. However,
today’s human/technology relationship can hardly be seen as strictly positive. The
debate on how and why mental disorders appear in relation to technology is ongoing
and it is not clear exactly how and why the negative effects occur [9]. However, as
technological development continues into the future we believe that we need to be
critical towards technology and learn to have a healthy relationship with it, in a
more symbiotic future. Therefore we believe speculative design is a fitting tool for
kickstarting both a debate and a critical mindset in society towards technology.

Speculative design has been critizised as being too academic in the past [7] and as
we are trying to tackle societal problems it seems important to create speculative
design artifacts that are truly interesting and thought provoking for the public. In
relation to related research on the subject we try to make speculative design with a
more prominent user focus. The hope is that this will create a design more suited
for a specific target group. Because of this, we employ a very open approach to this
project and therefore there is not a fully defined outcome. Instead of pre-defining
speculative scenarios and artifacts we want to co-create these aspects of the artifacts
together with the defined user group. This will hopefully lead to a final speculative
design that connects more to the general public and specifically the user group at
hand.

2.2 RISE project
RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden) are currently in the middle of a project on
behalf of Region Stockholm concerning growing mental health issues among young
people between the ages of 13 and 25. They are designing a digital platform for
promoting mental well-being with the aim of preventing mental illness on a national
scale [10]. Their vision is to create a joint space where people can find informa-
tion about different aspects of mental health and get easy access to a number of

7



2. Background

high quality digital services, outside of the health care system, that support mental
health. So far they have delivered a prototype that demonstrates what this type of
platform could look like based on a user-centered pilot study [11].

2.3 Research area
Here we present earlier and related work that is an important context for the project.
Firstly we present design research that is relevant to this project followed by a
presentation of general mental health research.

2.3.1 Related design research
There are several examples of speculative design that highlight the relationship be-
tween technology and humanity. In fact, most definitions of the term has the tech-
nology link as an integral part of the definition of speculative design [12]. Thus most
of what is labeled as speculative design explores the technology/human relationship.

Out of the papers we have read in preparation for this report many did not conduct
a thorough exploration of the problems and users [13, 14, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19].
Furthermore, it is possible to see two distinct ways speculative design is employed.
Firstly, as a medium for discussion [15, 19, 20]. Secondly, as the result of a workshop
usually in the shape of an artifact [13, 14, 7]. These workshops were also generally
carried out with experts such as design practitioners or other expert stakeholder.
There seems to be a lack of user-centered speculative design in general and the
artifacts are seldom tailored to appeal to a specific user group. Instead they are
used to explore a topic (often a chosen technology) in society at large with a very
broad or unspecified user group. Many speculative designs, also, do not tackle a
specific problem but rather highlight technology to be discussed.

A quick scan of design for mental health outside of speculative practices show a far
more user-focused approach. This might not appear surprising, as they generally
employ a more traditional design approach and thus rely far more on gathered data
from stakeholders.

For example, a British study highlight the importance of being user-centered by
using co-design in mental health scenarios. Arguing that working with vulnerable
people and complex services lends itself to a more collaborative approach [21]. A
research team from Australia also developed a clear methodology for designing for
youths with mental health problems, highlighting the importance of participatory
design and rigorous user studies [22]. Lyon also puts emphasis on the importance
of being user-centered when handling mental health [23]. This in line with other
product development projects outside of purely method based research [24, 25].

2.3.2 Mental health and Technology
The debate on the relationship and causality of mental health and technology is
ongoing and it is hard to determine that there are negative effects on mental health

8



2. Background

caused by use of technology [9]. However, more and more research on the subject
has been conducted in the last decade and it seems clear that the two at least affect
one another [26]. For example connections have been seen between mobile phone use
and lack of sleep, increased stress, depression and loneliness [26]. Furthermore, links
has been observed between loneliness and internet addiction and that one seem to
feed the other. That increased time using the internet leads to loneliness and that
loneliness leads to more time spent on the web [27].

According to Statistics Sweden, the amount of young people with mental disorders
has increased during the last 30 years in the Nordic countries. Out of those countries,
the problem has increased the most in Sweden [5]. Not only does this cause suffering
for the affected, but may also lead to long term consequences for individuals as well
as for society. Mental disorders such as depression, stress and burnouts are the most
common cause of sick leave [28]. What causes this development in Sweden is affected
by a number of complex relationships, and clarifying these relationships is a major
challenge [5].

One thing we know is that parallel to the increase of mental disorders, the use
of digital devices has escalated at a rapid pace [9]. There is an ongoing debate
that revolves around whether there is a correlation between these trends. The
Swedish public health authority, for example, states that there can be both positive
and negative effects from digital activities and that there is not enough studies
on the subject to draw specific conclusions [29]. Therefore it is not yet certain
if the increasing digitalization is detrimental to mental health or not. However,
several research papers and other sources indicates that there is a correlation between
extensive usage of digital services among young people and a variety of negative
mental symptoms such as stress, depression, FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) and
sleep deprivation [9, 29, 30, 27, 26].

2.3.3 Earlier work
Some projects do employ a more user-centered approach even though they generally
lack a thorough user study. Naseem et al. specifies both a clear problem and user
group when they researched well-being for elderly through speculative design [15].
Sondergaard et al. investigate a specific chosen technology with participatory design
when researching Digital Personal assistants [16]. A case has also been made for a
more dynamic testing scenario by Noortman et al. who with their “Design Fiction
Probe” HawkEye (2.1) evaluated the design in the participants home during three
weeks. The HawkEye study also had a more clear cut user group and problem in
the focus on dementia patients [19].

Some other user-centered project are Disalvo et als. Robot Radio [17] that was de-
veloped closely with users and Forlanos and Mathews urban planning project that
had several workshops with both expert and novice stakeholders [7].

In Lawson et al´s Problematising Upstream Technology through Speculative Design-
Design: The Case of Quantified Cats and Dogs [20] several speculative prototypes

9



2. Background

was developed and presented through fictional websites which was inspired by typ-
ical modern start-up aesthetics and language. After they invited users to observe
and discuss the prototypes and their websites in focus group settings.

Figure 2.1: The Hawkeye design probe [19]

Figure 2.2: Example of website used in evaluation session in Problematising Up-
stream Technology through Speculative Design: The Case of Quantified Cats and
Dogs [20]

10



3
Theory

This chapter aims to cover the relevant concepts and frameworks used in this project.
Firstly it lays out our basic theory of user-centered design and speculative design.
Continuing, it also describes general theory that is of value to the project.

3.1 User-Centered Design
User-centered design places users at the forefront of a design process. By working
closely with and towards users the designers hope to create products that matches
the users’ preferences in a more successful way [31]. To achieve this, designers
employ a variety of methods that engage a user group in the design process. These
tools can take on a variety of forms but they all aim to gather data on human needs
and behavior from a wide set of areas: anthropocentric, emotional, psychological
and sociological to name a few [32]. This is done both through verbal methods
like interviews, questionnaires and scenarios and non-verbal methods like cultural
probes, games and different kinds of observations [32]. User-centered design can be
used to understand the users on a deeper level, mapping needs and behavior the
users themselves seldom realize.

3.1.1 Double Diamond Design Approach
A design approach that encompasses iterative and exploratory aspects in order to
adapt to complex problems. As a design process often is chaotic by nature with
constantly changing scopes and ideas the method tries to adapt to the nature of
design being a highly iterative and adaptable approach [33]. In the design process,
user-centered exploration is often carried out by observing and interviewing users
and co-designing with stakeholders. Furthermore, exploration is often carried out
by testing ideas early and often with, for example, rapid prototyping. In the process
the designers work themselves through a series of steps to complete the project.
In this project we have chosen to work with a four stage process from the British
Design Council. Developed by the council in 2004 the double diamond approach is
a visualization of a design process that is both exploratory and highly iterative [33].
The double diamond approach consists of four steps that are as follows:

• Discover - In which a research group explores and tries to understand a
problem by interacting with the people who are affected by the issue.

• Define - In which a research group defines the challenge with the help of the
insights from the previous step.

11



3. Theory

• Develop - In which a research group designs a plethora of solutions to the
defined problem seeking inspiration from all kinds of sources. Co-designing
with individuals of different expertise is also encouraged.

• Deliver - In which a research group tests the ideas out rejecting ideas that
do not work and improving on those that will.

It is important to emphasis that it is a non-linear process where iteration between
the four stages is crucial [33].

Discover Defi
ne Develop Deli

ve
r

Connecting the dots and building relationships 
between different citizens, stakeholders and partners.

Creating the conditions that allow innovation, 
including culture change, skills and mindset.

OUTCOME

DESIGN 
PRINCIPLES
1. Be People Centred

2. Communicate (Visually & Inclusively)
3. Collaborate & Co-Create

4. Iterate, Iterate, Iterate

METHODS 
BANK

Explore, Shape, Build

CHALLENGE

© Design Council 2019

Figure 3.1: The Double diamond model according to the British Design
Council[33].

3.1.2 Co-design
Co-design has been around for almost 40 years under the name of Participatory
Design [34]. In the 70’s, the Nordic countries established the Collective Resource
Approach [35] aiming to increase the value of industrial production and improve
the quality of work-life [36] through engaging workers in the development of new
workplace systems. Since then it has grown and spread within the design sphere
under different names, definitions and approaches.

In this report, we will use Sanders and Stappers [34] definition of co-design, that
is “the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together
in the design development process”. It is a user-centered approach involving active
user and stakeholder participation throughout the whole design process [37]. The

12



3. Theory

approach utilize the expertise and skills of designers together with the situated ex-
pertise of the users, for the purpose of creating products or systems that are more
suitable to the user. Users then become, to varying extents, part of the design team
as experts of their experiences.

In a classic design process, the researcher typically possesses the role as a translator
between the users and the designer. When co-designing however, the designer or
researcher (who may be the same person) serves as a facilitator. The facilitators role
is to lead, guide and incite creativity among the non-designers. In order for them to
be creative, the facilitator must provide the right tools for ideation and expression.
In the end the designer plays a crucial role in giving form to the ideas [34].

3.2 Speculative Design
Speculative design has become well known in HCI (Human Computer Interaction)
since the early 2000s [38]. As a term speculative design is hard to define fully. It
has much in common with other similar practices like critical design1, design fiction2

and discursive design3. In fact, the common factors in these methods are sometimes
so many that the results are almost indistinguishable from each other [39]. Fur-
thermore, the terms speculative design and critical design have been known to be
summed up in one single abbreviation SCD (Speculative and Critical Design) [40]
showcasing the similarity of the terms in some contexts.

What these practices have in common are mainly (1) an unshackling of the commer-
cial constraints present in traditional design and (2) the usage of alternate realities
to present artifacts, systems, worlds or ideas [39]. In this report, these practices will
be summarized as speculative design as we consider it being the most descriptive
word for the aims of this project. Inspired by the reasoning of James Auger [39]
speculative design is in our opinion the least problematic of the terms. Speculative
design - as a word - does not elude to any specific value or goal. It instead references
the practice that is central to the method. The term “speculation” also references a
link between fiction and reality that is desirable in the practice. Critical Design hints
at the practices intentions of starting debate and analysis - something that might
alienate individuals from outside an academic space. The term “design fiction” also
clearly reveals the practice as dislocated from reality. It hints at the ideas coming
from another reality in a way that might be detrimental.

Speculative design separates itself from market-driven design, it explores a parallel
channel with a more open ended goal. Instead of solving a problem it uses design
to pose questions, criticize, inspire and provoke by standing in contrast to trends
and systems in today’s society [6]. By speculating in alternative futures or parallel
realities it creates a lens through which we can question our society today. Through
these fictional realities Speculative Design explore what kind of products, trends
and ideas would exist in such an scenario and how they relate to our reality today.

It is this link to reality that is the key to a speculative design’s success. If a de-

13



3. Theory

signer moves too far into speculation they risk to lose the audience when they are
confronted with an unbelievable or alien idea [39]. There needs to be a link between
the speculative reality and our own in order for the design to be relatable.

That being said, it is wrong to assume that a speculative design needs to be “pos-
sible” or even fully functional. Instead the artifact can very much be “impossible”
but not “improbable”. Ergo it needs to make sense that it exists in the fictional
reality it is presented as a part of [6]. The artifact needs to engage the user in such
a way that it invites them to suspend their disbelief and ask themselves what the
consequences of the artifact are in relation to the fictional space. Speculative design
is therefore a constant balance between fiction and relatability, a balance which is
extremely hard to get right, but very effective if done correctly [6].

3.2.1 Speculative Design approach

Speculative design consists of a very diverse set of approaches. It is therefore dif-
ficult to present a definite toolkit[41]. In our project we have been inspired by a
approach presented by Damien Lutz [42]. His article gives an example of what a
simplified speculative design method could look like and presents it in five steps:

• Step 1 - In which “signals” of emerging technologies and trends are identified

• Step 2 - In which different speculative design tools are used to ideate a future
artifact

• Step 3 - In which an artifacts is designed that might solve a problem in a
speculative future world. The artifacts form and function should tell a story
about the future world it exists in and inspire the observers imagination to fill
in the gaps. This will inspire and spark the discussion in step 4.

• Step 4 - In which the speculative design is shared to generate discussion. The
designer should make it easy for the observer to express their interpretation
of the artifact. Be prepared with questions that encouraged them to express
their feelings around the concept.

• Step 5 - In which the designer acts on the result. According to the author,
speculative design does not normally include follow-on action. Therefore he
suggests to include this final step which could be to, for example, ask for feed-
back from experts or potential users of the artifact, or creating a promotional
website for the future artifact where one can track and record feedback and
reaction.

14



3. Theory

Figure 3.2: An example of a simplified speculative design approach [42].

3.3 Wicked Problems
Wicked problem were first coined by Rittel and Webber and refers to a problem that
is not clearly solvable by scientific means. Scientific problems have clear definitions
and objective solutions while wicked problems are by their nature hard to define
and lack clear solutions. They are complex problems with a plethora of solutions
where any one solution might lead to several new problems cropping up [43]. Wicked
problems therefore need to be tackled in a dynamic way where the designer solves
and explores the problem in parallel, constantly redefining both the aim of the re-
search and scope of the problem. Thus wicked problems are inherently hard to plan
around. A wicked problem is never simply solved and the solution is never truly
the right one. A solution to a wicked problem might be good but not objectively
true. As the problem is so complex the solving process is never truly finished but
the problem is instead abandoned for other reasons like: time constrains, budget or
the solution being “good enough” [43].

Classic examples of wicked problems are, collected from the Interaction Design Foun-
dation: poverty, climate change, sustainability, and homelessness [44].

In order to be prepared for unforeseen complexities in design work the designer
needs to be adaptive and flexible. The designer needs to constantly reflect-in-action
in order to tackle uncertainties and unforeseen consequences [45].

15



3. Theory

16



4
Methodology

In this chapter, relevant methodology for this thesis is explained. The majority of
the methods have been chosen due to their effectiveness in human-centered design
processes and in speculative design.

4.1 Interviews
Interviews are a qualitative data gathering method that relies on first hand con-
tact to gather data from participants. The shape of the interview can vary from
structured, with a set script, to relatively unstructured, with room for dynamic con-
versations with investigatory detours. However, even in unstructured interviews the
interviewer has at least a set of topics to guide the interview in a desirable way. The
questions asked and the structure will vary depending on the design inquiry at hand.
Generally the interviews tend toward the unstructured side if the research is of an
exploratory kind. A more structured approach is appropriate if more quantifiable
data is desired [37][46].

4.2 Focus Groups
A focus group is a qualitative data gathering method that, like the interview, relies
on first hand contact in order to gather data through conversation. However, while
an interview is often conducted with a single person a focus group utilizes group
dynamics in order to make participants more likely to share their thoughts. By
carefully selecting participants and guiding the conversation, the focus group can
result in a open environment where participants freely share their wants, biases,
fantasies, etc. A focus group is a good method for uncovering data related to
group activity and behavioral underlying data not usually exposed in one-on-one
conversations [37]. The moderators main goal is to keep the conversation flowing
without letting any single participant dominate the conversation [46].

4.3 Sensitization
Sensitization is a method that aims to encourage the participants to think and reflect
on their own experiences around the topic of study before a design workshop. This
can increase the quality and quantity of their contribution during the group session

17



4. Methodology

[47]. Normally one or several smaller exercises is sent out to the participants days
or weeks before the session. The quality of the insights gained from the participants
during the session is depending on the length and depth of the sensitizing activities
[47].

4.4 Co-design workshop
Co-design workshops can be used in several stages of the design process. In the
exploration stage they can be utilized to gain deeper understanding of the users
needs and context. Here the facilitator can make use of methods such as collage,
mapping or diagramming exercises. Co-design can also be used in later stages of
the process with exercises such as flexible modeling, ideation, generation of future
scenarios and concepts, and verifying design scope and direction. In the evaluation
stage, one can utilize co-design workshops in order to let the participants review
concepts, give feedback and supply insights for further iteration and refinement [37].

4.5 Collage
Collage is a method often utilized in co-design workshops to get the users partaking
in idea generation and product development. Collage making allows participants
to express experiences, dreams and hopes through images and words [48]. The
method, put simply, is to provide the participants with an image bank they use for
collage making. The image bank should consist of images open for interpretation
to avoid influencing the participants too much [49]. Afterwards, the participants
explain what the collage and images mean to them. This data is then collected and
analyzed by the researcher. Collages has also been argued to be a very good tool for
generating speculative design due to how quick it is and supports creative thinking
[50].

4.6 KJ Technique
The KJ Technique is an efficient method used to structure and analyze large amount
of qualitative data. The exercise involves selecting relevant statements from inter-
views and observations then organizing and grouping them into different categories
with different themes. This helps formulate and identify problems and requirements
[37].

4.7 Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a method used to spur group creativity, incite ideas, and solve
problems. In the beginning of a project it aims to generate as many ideas as possible
without questioning their applicability. This can be achieved by creating an open,
non-judgmental environment where the group can build on each others ideas [51].

18



4. Methodology

Brainstorming is usually credited to Osborn and first described in his book Applied
Imagination [52]. In this book he proposed four important aspects of brainstorming
in order to succeed, these were: do not criticize, quantity is wanted, combine and
improve suggested ideas, and say all ideas that come to mind, no matter how wild.

4.8 The Thing from the Future
The Thing from the Future is a creative card game with the aim of creating thought-
provoking sketches and/or descriptions of speculative design artifacts from different
futures. Each round the players create a prompt with four cards that: (1) frames
the type of future the artifact should be created for, (2) defines what culture or
part of society it belongs to, (3) portrays what type of artifact it is and (4) propose
what kind of emotional reaction it may provoke in a present audience. Afterwards,
each player writes a description of an artifact that fits the outline of the prompt.
The players then get to vote for the description they think is the most interesting,
creative and provocative [53].

Figure 4.1: One example of a prompt from The Thing from the Future. Partici-
pants create concepts based on the prompt. [53]

4.9 Future Scan
Future Scan is an ideation tool that helps imagine how the world could look like
in the future and what products and services would be relevant for that world. It
can be useful both as a simple exercise or as a tool in a bigger speculative design
process. The chart contains around 150 potential future scenarios. The idea is to
pick a number from any sector and brainstorm around how to tackle your specific
challenge in this future scenario. [54]

4.10 Weighted matrix
A weighted matrix helps manage potential design ideas by evaluating them against
different criteria rated on a scale. The criteria are defined by the team and stake-

19



4. Methodology

holders and should represent the most important aspects for product success. The
weighted matrix is useful as support for shared decision making. Important to note
is that the conversations this tool generates among the team can be as useful as its
result [37].

4.11 Prototyping
Prototyping is the creation of artifacts in order to further explore and crystallize the
form and function of an idea. Prototypes can come in different levels of complexity
from simple drawings to complex wire frames almost indistinguishable from the
finished product [37].

Low-fidelity prototyping
A low-fidelity prototype is common in the early stages of a design process and often
work as an internal tool for testing out ideas. However, it also does an excellent work
evaluating more general concepts towards stakeholders outside the design team [37].
Some examples of low-fidelity prototypes are: sketches, simple digital wire frames,
and storyboards.

High-fidelity prototyping
A high-fidelity prototype is higher in detail and functionality. It might lack some
important functionality but contain the look and feel of the final artifact. They are
useful for later stage testing where the aesthetics of a product are more central to
the experience [37]. Some examples of high-fidelity prototypes are: complex sets of
wireframes, CAD models, and physical models of great complexity.

4.12 Seven Foundations model
Seven Foundations is a foresight model that can be helpful when imaging and build-
ing new visions of the future. This vision and future world can then be used as a
tool to create innovative ideas and strategies. The model takes the shape of a circle
divided into seven topics(foundations) that are filled with reasoning surrounding the
scenario one is creating. For example: the model can be used as a chronological tool
where events close to the center of the sphere represent today and those further out
are the events and cultural themes of the future.
The foundations are: political, economic, environmental, scientific and technologi-
cal, social and artistic. These are the most fundamental parts which together make
up a mental model of a society. The Seven Foundations model can be used for sev-
eral purposes such as strategic foresight, systemic design, product innovation and
science fiction prototyping [55].

20



4. Methodology

Figure 4.2: The 7 foundation model explained. This shows the incremental version.
[55]

4.13 Scenario
A scenario is a design method that aims to concretize a product use-cases in every-
day life. The purpose of this is to understand the users behaviors and drives. Also,
to understand the interaction with the product from a users perspective to better
communicate how that interaction works [56]. By describing an everyday user and
her interactions with a product the scenario can work as an anchor for a develop-
ment team making sure that the design does not loose a cultural significance and a
connection to the end user. This way the product is kept from straying to far into
its technical requirement instead putting the focus on creating product that has a
place in a day-to-day life [37].

A scenario can take on many different forms. It could be written as a short story, or
take on a more visual form. A scenario is most often created from a personas point
of view creating a subjective view of the product [37].

4.14 Bodystorming
Body storming is a role-playing technique employed in order to get an understanding
of a user experience with a product. With the help of simple prototypes a designer

21



4. Methodology

can act out scenarios and interactions with a product, moving through space and
situations. Bodystorming has a number of use-cases, it can be used for ideation,
concept generation or testing both individually or in parallel. Benefiting from its
improvisational and active approach bodystorming can lead to new spontaneous
ideas being born from an acted interaction [37].

4.15 Auto Ethnography
Auto ethnography uses a researcher’s personal experience to explore a system or a
product. With careful self-reflection a researcher can use their own experience to
describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences [57].

4.16 Co-Discovery
Co-Discovery is a user experience evaluation method. The idea is that two partic-
ipants, preferably friends who know each other from before, explores a product or
concept together and freely discuss about it, with or without a moderator. Sharing
an experience with a friend can trigger more authentic and experiential comments
than a normal interview or discussion with a moderator. However, as this is a
method where the participants will control the discussion to a great extent, it can
be difficult for the researcher to decide the direction of the discussion. Therefore
there is no guarantee that the session covers all the topics that the researcher de-
sires. This can be solved by having a moderator present during the session leading
the conversation towards these topics. Or asking the participants beforehand to
talk about these specific subjects. However, the more the researcher influences the
discussion the less spontaneous it becomes. Furthermore, this method is suitable
when trying to look into the initial responses to a product or concept [58].

22



5
Execution and Process

This chapter describes the process and execution of the project. We employed a flex-
ible and open approach in order to easily be able to adapt the project towards the
target group (young adults, 16-25 year old). Thus we began the project with only a
singular theme to explore - the relationship between mental health and technology.
Further we employed methods to help us understand and map details within this
theme that the user group found interesting, relevant, and relatable.

Throughout this project we aimed to combine speculative design theory with a user-
centered focus. Firstly, we conducted a thorough user study in order to map the
wants and struggles of the target group. We did this in order to get an understand-
ing of how the user group relates to technology on a personal level, we also wanted
to research what kind of technology the user group related most heavily to in order
to pivot the project to focus on that technology. Secondly, we conducted future
themed co-design workshops together with representatives from the target group.
We aimed to design for their vision of the future rather than an academic future
vision.

By constantly adapting and pivoting the project towards themes that seemed central
to the user group in question we hoped that we would create speculative design that
not only appeared appealing and thought provoking to the user group but also to
the public at large. This would hopefully lead to an artifact that in a successful way
sparked discussion on topics of mental health in relation to technology.
By modifying the double diamond process from the British Design Council[33] with
the Speculative design process by Damien Lutz[42] we constructed a process that
fit our goals and incorporated both user-centered and speculative approaches. The
process has been divided into a series of distinct stage to clarify the structure of
the project. However, in reality the steps had significant overlap and iteration. The
steps are as follows:

• Empathize and define - In which we explored the user group documenting their
relationship towards technology through interviews and co-creation workshops.

• Ideation - In which we used the insights to create future oriented concepts.
• Prototype - In which we constructed prototypes and role-played in order to

crystallize and improve on the ideas from the previous step. This step also
included backstory and construction of the artifact’s setting.

• Test - In which we evaluated the artifact with the users in order to validate if
it archived the set out goals.

23



5. Execution and Process

Figure 5.1: The project process. A modified double diamond approach.

Each stage of the project is described below followed by relevant methods used
during that specific stage.

5.1 Empathize and define
The first stage puts focus on understanding the problem, its context, and stakehold-
ers. During this stage we used exploratory data gathering methods and co-design
workshops to paint a picture of the target group and research field. Emphasis was
firstly put on understanding the target group and their relationship to technology,
and secondly on understanding their view on the future in order to create believable
scenarios that appeal to them. Furthermore, we focused on collection of qualitative
data. As we were mainly interested in exploring the problem from different angles,
the personal opinions of the different involved parties was therefore highly relevant.

The insights gained were analyzed and synthesized in order to define the core prob-
lems. The hope was to through analysis methods concretize the data set into an
understandable picture of the target group - their thoughts and desires. Specific care
was put into defining the target groups’ relationship towards technology and their
vision of the future, as this was considered paramount in relation to our research
questions.

5.1.1 Interviews
In order to get an initial grasp of both the field and the target group, we conducted
a total of twelve interviews over a period of four weeks. Two of them were expert
interviews and ten of them were interviews with participants from the target group.
The participants were recruited through convenience sampling. The interviews were
semi-structured in order to keep the conversation open and flexible [37]. Our main

24



5. Execution and Process

interest was in the interviewees’ rich understanding of the issues, rather than gath-
ering quantitative data.

Psychologist interviews

At a very early stage of the process two interviews where conducted with four prac-
ticing psychologist. The interviews had the main purpose of familiarizing us with
the topics that we will handle during this project. The interview template was the
same for both interviews. As stated earlier, we are not knowledgeable in terms and
methodology within psychology and to gain a baseline understanding of the mental
health issues was very important to us in order to fully understand the problem.

The two interviews in question were one focus group interview with three school
psychologists and a one-on-one interview with a child psychologist that were con-
ducted through a video conference tool. Both interviews had fruitful outcomes and
yielded data and understanding of the topic. Most notably the expertise from the
interviewed psychologists helped us complexify several statements that we, up to
that point, had perceived as simple facts.

Age Sex Work Experience Interview medium
Group Interview 34 Male 5 years Physical meeting

33 Male 5 years Physical meeting
39 Male 5 years Physical meeting

Individual Interview 27 Male 1 year Digital meeting

Table 5.1: The participants of the psychologist expert interviews

Target group interviews

We conducted ten interviews with participants from the target group in order to
map how they see their own technology. The interviews where semi-structured and
all had the same template (see A.1). Starting out with broad questions we quickly
localized the technology that that specific user saw as the main problem and thus
let them shape the interview themselves. We seeked answers to (1) what is a specific
technology that is problematic for the target group and (2) problems that the target
group identified with.

As the interviews were semi-structured, there was room to both skip and add ques-
tions if a topic proved extra interesting. The interviews had the following phases:

1. Introduction to our research problem, consent, and formalities.
2. Warm up: questions and inquiry into the main technology the participants

used in their daily life (computer, smartphone, or other). We also probed for
screen time per day (in hours) and other use related questions.

25



5. Execution and Process

3. Psychological phase: questions on the feelings of the participants towards
their own use of technology, and how they felt the technology affected them
negatively. This section contained both open and concrete questions to ac-
commodate for all participants.

4. Speculative phase: questions on the future of technology. This phase was
initially added because we intended to gather data on how the participants
saw the future, but also to gain an initial picture on how straightforward it
is for the target group to speculate on the future. This knowledge was later
used when constructing the follow-up workshops.

5. Ending with a round-up where we asked the participants whether or not they
had thought and discussed any of these topics before the current session.

All in all the interviews were interesting and successful, many interviewees showed
a genuine interest in the topics and had a lot to say on the subject.

Age Sex Occupation Interview medium
16 Female High school Digitally
16 Female High school Digitally
16 Female High school Digitally
19 Male Working Digitally
21 Male University Digitally
22 Female University Digitally
22 Female University Digitally
23 Female University Digitally
24 Male University Digitally
24 Male Working Digitally

Table 5.2: The participants of the target group interviews

5.1.2 Co-design workshops
Two co-design workshops was conducted together with participants from the target
group. All participants were recruited through convenience sampling. Two main
goals with these workshops was set: (1) to gain a deeper understanding of their
current experience, context, and needs; and (2) to understand their thoughts, ideas,
and hopes about the future and its possible products and services. Thereby the
workshops also served as an important source of inspiration. A main focus of these
workshops was to co-design future scenarios together with the target group. The
scenarios and artifacts generated from these sessions were more or less interesting
and useful in themselves. However, the reasoning, dreams and feelings behind them
proved very interesting and useful.

26



5. Execution and Process

Workshop 1 3 hours, Physical setting

Break

IntroductionQuiz Walk Discussion
Thing from 
the future

Imaginary 
Employer

Wrap up

Participants
Age Sex Occupation
24 Female University
25 Female University
26 Female University
25 Male University

Workshop 2 3 hours, Digital setting

IntroductionQuiz Walk DiscussionCollage Wrap up
Thing from 
the future

Break

Participants
Age Sex Occupation
22 Female University
22 Female University
20 Female University
16 Female High School

Table 5.3: Workshop structure and participants

Both researchers attended the workshops. One serving as facilitator while the other
carefully took notes and kept track of time. The workshops were analyzed using the
KJ technique in an almost identical manner as with the target group interviews.

Workshop 1

The first workshop was conducted with four participants in a physical setting. This
workshop had an additional goal, besides the two main goals explained above: to
test our method Imaginary Employer, see 5.2.1. A sensitizing exercise was sent out
a few days prior to the workshop to encourage the participants to think and reflect
on their own experiences around the main topic of the session before the workshop.
This was a simple exercise with questions to reflect on about life as a human in the

27



5. Execution and Process

future such as:

• What could a vacation look like in the future?
• What could a new subject in school be in the future?
• What kind of pets could be common to own in the future?

In order to break the ice and create a relaxed and open environment we prepared a
warm-up quiz walk about the future for the participants to start the session with.
The quiz walk contained questions set in the future, that is, the questions concerned
events that had not happened yet, thus the questions had no wrong answers. This
sparked speculative and future oriented thinking in the participants. Then we in-
troduced them to our project and explained the workshop timeline and goal.

Figure 5.2: The questions of the Quiz Walk translated from Swedish to English.
(Note that the quiz walk was conducted before the 2020 American election placing
all the questions chronologically in the future.)

We used a quiz walk firstly because it is a very relatable activity that we knew our

28



5. Execution and Process

participants would be familiar with. Secondly we believed it a playful activity that
would spark creativity and create an open, non-judgemental environment for the
workshop.

Next step of the workshop was to start generating ideas. We had prepared for them
to play the card game The thing from the future4.8. This method was used to trigger
participants to let go of the present and create innovative scenarios and artifacts for
a possible future. The participants got five minutes on each randomized prompt to
generate ideas. When the time was up they were asked to take turns presenting and
reacting to each others ideas.

After a break we started the next step of the workshop which was to ideate with
the method Imaginary Employer which we developed ourselves in order to help
generate speculative ideas for an alternate reality. The participants were told to
imagine themselves being an employee at two different future companies explained
by the facilitator. (1) Codine - a huge multinational software company that fo-
cuses on creating innovative software that makes everyday tasks more efficient, and
(2) Teknikgranskningsverket - conducts research of both software and hardware re-
lated to stately matters, and evaluates technology and its impact on Swedish society.

They were then asked to generate ideas around two different scenarios as an em-
ployee at each of the companies, i.e. creating the best possible solution for them.
The scenarios were used as a communication tool towards the participants to get
them in the right mindset. We created these prompts based on the most interesting
themes from the interview data. In short the scenarios were as follows:

• The year is 2040 and you want to create products that urges constant use. Make
people spend more time, gladly unhealthy amounts of time on the product.

• The year is 2120 and you are ordered to create new ways to socialize digitally
and find a way to truly mimic a genuine real life meeting.

After each stage of the session the participants fastened their ideas on a white board
and at the very end of the workshop they were given small sticky notes and were
told to rank their two favorite ideas with a short motivation.

Workshop 2

The second workshop was held in a digital room with four participants. The time
plan was similar to the first workshop, see 5.3. However, instead of using the Imagi-
nary Employer method we conducted a collage making exercise as a medium through
which the users could visualize their thoughts, feelings, hopes, and desires. This re-
placement was made as the collage making exercise is, in our experience, an effective
method to use in a digital workshop and was expected to give similar insights. Fur-
thermore, we did not want to repeat the same structure with the Imaginary Employer
method as it was not an established method and did not yield desirable results in
the first workshop. The same sensitizing exercise was sent to the participants a few

29



5. Execution and Process

(a) (b)

Figure 5.3: The co-creation workshop in action. Showing the participants ideating
(a) and showing the participants ranking the different ideas (b).

days before and once again the quiz walk was used for warming up, only digitally
this time.

The sensitizing exercise was discussed and after that it was time for the collage mak-
ing exercise. The participants were given a digital "sheet of paper" and an image
bank and were asked to describe what they think a day in their life 2120 would
look and feel like. This by choosing images from the image bank and assembling
them any way they preferred. To unprompted put oneself in a creative mindset is
hard and with help of this method we could remedy this by letting them create an
artifact through which their thoughts appeared. The reason for choosing collages
specifically is that people in general are uncomfortable with sketching and we hoped
that a more structured prototyping method would make it easier for users to engage
in the workshop. After 15 minutes they were asked to take turns presenting their
collages while the facilitator asked further questions about the images to dig deeper
and truly understand what they were trying to express.

After a 10 minutes break the workshop continued with The thing from the future
and later a wrap up with ranking of ideas and discussion.

30



5. Execution and Process

(a) (b)

Figure 5.4: The co-creation workshop in action. Showing the participants ideating
(a) and showing the participants ranking the different ideas (b).

5.1.3 Transcribing

First, the recorded interviews and workshops were transcribed in order to more
easily isolate quotes from the material. This was also paramount in order to not
introduce bias from the research group at an early stage of the analysis. If other
methods would have been employed we would run the risk of losing quotes that
does not clearly show interesting points but might have a deeper meaning. By
transcribing all the audible words of the interviews/workshops we instead worked
with all possible data from the start.

5.1.4 KJ technique

With the transcribed data ready we started to group it into more understandable
chunks through the KJ technique, see 4.6. All data was grouped and categorized in
order to map the commonality of a specific opinion or themes in the data gathered.
The KJ work was an iterative process and many parts of the data were reevaluated
in light of other quotes. Themes changed and quotes were moved until we believed
we had a good picture of the collected data. The result was then transferred into
written form by scanning through the themes and summarizing the quotes in written
form. This approach was used for both crystallizing the data from the interviews
and the workshops.

5.1.5 Result from empathize and define stage

In this section we present summarized versions of the result from the pre-study.
The result from the psychologist and target-group interviews is presented as well as
the result from the workshops. Finally we also present concrete takeaways that was
carried over into the next phase.

31



5. Execution and Process

Figure 5.5: The KJ analysis for the user group data.

5.1.5.1 Result from psychologist interviews

The psychologist interviews gave a much deeper understanding of the problem
through the interview itself. As the interview had a rather conversational tone
it created less of a one way interview setting and more of an open conversation
that we believe helped in getting concrete analysis and opinions on the topics for
discussion. We left the interview with a deeper understanding of the issue of mental
health in relation to technology, an understanding that permeated the whole project
and gave us confidence in believing that the we had a more correct and complex
analysis of the issues. From the psychologist interviews we condensed a couple of
topic/opinions that we though interesting and relevant.
The following statements should be seen as no other but these specific individuals
opinions. However, as they are all practicing psychologist they can, at least, be seen
as their professional opinions and thus have value as inspiration.

The psychologists made a point of the way that we today socialize heavily through
digital media. They believed this to be problematic but had a hard time formulating
specific reasons why. There was also discussion on the relatively novel term paraso-
cial relationships4 and how they might be replacements for classical mutual ones.
In the pshychologists opinion this is not problematic per se but if the parasocial
relationships substitute mutual ones it could lead to loneliness and lacking social
skills. However, they also noted that a parasocial relationship can have positive
effect in that it can train a person in social skills that later will be employed in
classical mutual relationships.

The psychologists had opinions on the ease of distraction in modern life. By having
the possibility to constantly be distracted we have become worse at remembering
specific facts and instead better at finding facts when needed. This is also mirrored

32



5. Execution and Process

in how the school system has an increasing focus on deploying skill sets rather then
just remembering raw facts. The constant distraction has also led to us removing
ourselves from or own feelings. That is, not confronting the woes of our lives, instead
opting to blur them out with constant distraction. The psychologists argued that
this has led to a generally low bar of what is considered mental problems. As we
are uncomfortable in states of mental distress and chose to distract ourselves from
our own feelings, we lose the skill to handle stressful situations.

People in today’s society are forced to present themselves “in the manner of prod-
ucts”. Instead of presenting our lives in a natural way social media pushes us to
constantly only show happy and exciting parts of our lives. This creates a norm
of persistent happiness that clashes with the natural way of having a life with ups
and downs. In extension this creates a general opinion that feeling low is considered
negative and unnatural, not a part of a successful life. The psychologists perceived
this as negative as it makes people ill prepared for the natural ups and downs of
life. It also creates unnecessary stigma around mental health. An interesting part
of this argument was that they meant that even social media profiles that exten-
sively present their own mental health do it in a disgenuine way: simply showing
the “cleaner parts” or lacking the necessary terminology to represent their issues in
a meaningful way. Instead they present a general picture of mental health lacking
in personal observations.

The psychologists seemed apprehensive towards quantifying mental health. They
argued that the human mind is too complex to be reduced to just bars and numbers.
Instead of working with blanket terms and set solutions society should focus on
helping individuals with the methods that work best for that specific individual.

5.1.5.2 Result from user study

Analysis of the interviews resulted in 23 categories, see A.2. Some general takeaways
can be gathered from the extensive data set. The vast majority of the interviews
were pivoted towards the topic of mobile phone use. This because most of the
interviewees described that they used their phones far more then any other tech-
nological platform and that it was specifically phone use that was their concern in
their everyday life. Many describe the phone as often being a distraction and a time
waster. Furthermore many discussions turned towards social media as a problem,
this because the interviews perceived it as the kind of programs (apps) they used
the most and had the most complex problem towards. Only one interviewee used
their computer more than their phone as that interviewee played computer games
as a pass time.

“I think they take too much time, a I think they take up too much time,
often you open them up because it is a simple pastime for a few minutes
and then suddenly it has been half an hour instead.”

For clarity the participants has been divided into two groups: those that perceive
their technology use as a problem and those who do not. The ones who do think it

33



5. Execution and Process

is a problem are in this case heavily in the majority. However they do have many
different tactics to handling the problem. Some have vast networks of tricks and ac-
tivities to lessen their phone use, these are also the same people that have extensive
analysis on the subject and most prominently present themselves as being negative
towards their vast amount of everyday phone use.

“Yes, it[the phone] just locks itself and then in order to access it you
could still enter a code and I noticed that I entered this code every time
and used it anyway.”

The rest of the group have varying degrees of action and analysis towards their own
phone use. From maybe trying out some simple tricks to use their phone less to
just acknowledging the fact that there is a problem without doing anything about it.

Some participants expressed that they did not perceive any problems with their
phone use. However, it seems to us unlikely that a person who uses any tool 5-10
hours a day will not see both positives and negatives with that tool. Thus it seems
peculiar that some interviewees did not have anything negative to say on the sub-
ject of their phone use. This could be due to: (1) the questions being too abstract,
(2) these people having a bias towards negative talk about technology (as this is a
common confrontation from teachers in school and thus they knowingly withheld
information in the interview in order to not paint their phone in a bad light), and
(3) they simply live such technology impregnated lives that they can not visualize
a life without their phone, making the question irrelevant for them.

It is clear from the analysis that many participants want genuine social interaction
and perceive technology as being in the way of more natural opportunities for so-
cialization. However, they have a hard time describing why digital socialization feels
less valuable.

“Social exchange is so important to people. And I think that the mobile
phone can also sometimes be a social escape, that you flee to the phone
and then it is no social media.”

This view is also mirrored by almost everyone the project has come in contact with
outside of the user group representatives. Participants find to important to live a
life with physical social interaction where two (or more) people meet in a loving
and empathetic way, they also often perceive technology as being in the way of such
activities.

Many found it hard to spontaneously speculate on the future. Those who actually
answered the future oriented questions at all did so with generally shallow answers
and well established tropes such as robots, space, etc.

“I do not really know but I think we will mostly see development in
smartphones and cars and games and stuff. So I think it will be easier

34



5. Execution and Process

to get around and find things out and hold things that are thinner and
so on, I do not really know...”

As the questions regarding the future was added with the expressive purpose of
probing for the interviewees capabilities to spontaneously speculate this is not a
problem per se. However it is clear that it will be important to use appropriate
methods during the workshops in order for the participants to be able to speculate
beyond the contemporary.

One thing we found both interesting and worrying was how common the topic of
younger generations were during the interviewees. The interview had no pre-defined
questions regarding the topic of children and their technology use and the fact that
the rather young user group still lifted the subject hints at the importance of the
topic to them.

“I see younger children who sit glued to their tablets and their phones
and stuff like that. Then I think back to when I was little and did not
have all that stuff in the same way and I always think that I had so much
more fun When I was little.”

Interesting to note is that very few interviewees mentioned data privacy. We had
anticipated this as being a much bigger issue that the data shows.

It is also important to note that many participants described positive aspects of
technology as well. More functional apps such as bank apps, public transport apps,
etc., seem to be very uncomplicated in their use case.

“It is practical to have music, banking, e-invoices, it is easy to be able
to get in touch with people quickly. if you are late or something has
happened. I feel that I have talked a lot about what I think is negative
but I obviously think that there is a lot of positives with it as well.”

5.1.5.3 Result from workshops

Analyzing the workshop resulted in 15 categories, see A.3, and a great amount of
ideas. The ideas were more or less useful in themselves for us to continue developing.
Instead, the concept and reasoning behind them gave us ample understanding of the
user group’s view on the future.

The workshop showed that almost all workshop participants had a focus on climate
change when envisioning the future. Even when discussing or ideating on matters
not apparently demanding a climate angle they still created scenarios and solutions
that had the environment in mind. In general the participants seemed to put their
hope towards technology to solve the climate crisis, however the importance of there
being motivation for deploying technology in order to save the environment was also
brought up. One example of an idea on this theme was: a meat eating plant that was

35



5. Execution and Process

a result of our climate destruction. The plant eventually grows huge and combats
society. Interestingly, this idea was pitched as neutral or even positive even though
the plant would eat large amounts of people. Another idea was a set of dice that
randomly determines what bare necessity moon-colonists needed to give up in order
for others to survive. This, we believe, expressing a want for people to reduce their
extensive consumption of natural resources.

When participants were asked to brainstorm on the subject of state and governance
many of them came up with ideas that had dystopian undertones and existed in
surveillance societies. For example - an AI system that reads people’s minds and
catches and acts on destructive thoughts that people have. These ideas were created
relatively unprompted showing that many fear a future with increased surveillance
and dictatorial aspects of state. However, as earlier prompts in the workshop had a
somewhat negative tone, this may have affected the participants’ state of mind and
therefore also the results.

A technology that recurrently mentioned through the workshops was VR technol-
ogy. Several people created scenarios where humanity more or less lived in VR, this
was often combined with climate disaster where VR was an escape from a dying and
more hostile world.

Another thing that was mentioned several times was robots. One example being
that automation will make most jobs obsolete and people instead work with observ-
ing robots at work. Several had ideas about robotic pets or plants with varying
degrees of personality and function. For example: an extremely invasive plant that
grows all over your home to cure depression. The singularity 5 was also mentioned
as a possible future scenario.

Some ideas had to do with how different cultures and our psychological well-being
and opinions will change in the future. For example one person expressed that cul-
tural activities, such as music and cooking, will disappear. Another hoped that the
future would be more spiritual as a revolt against a technology based and infor-
mation dense reality. One participant mentioned that the future is often presented
as being more relaxed and harmonious but that this is not necessarily the case.
This showing fear of shortage of reflection in our society on the consequences of the
technology development.
Many ideas were projections of technology that we see today being developed fur-
ther. The participants envision a more digitalized and efficient world where all
aspects of society and life are “improved” by new and more advanced technology.
Some mentioned new school subjects that might be needed due to this, for example
software development and mental health in relation to social media. Some ideas also
showcased a belief that the future may hold more emotional technological improve-
ments to life. For example cloning deceased loved ones back to life or cloning dead
pets.

Some ideas handle systems that help people make important life choices. For exam-

36



5. Execution and Process

ple a cylinder that helps one vote in elections by analyzing ones’ “true” wants, or
a system that analyses your brain at an early stage and tells you what you should
work with.

In general, the participants expressed a feeling of hopelessness towards the climate
aspects of the future. They also described concern for the future and a fear of it
developing in the wrong direction. Some highlighted the dissonance between society
and human nature saying that we do not fit into the way society is constructed.
Furthermore they argue that this dissonance will increase as society moves into a
more technological future. The participants mentioned aspects such as the human
need of physical contact, or to experience nature. There were general mentions of
poor mental health in the future as we increasingly disregard basic human social
needs. According to the participants, people will become more lonely in the future
as technology makes a lonely lifestyle more viable. They mentioned that we need to
learn how to live with technology to keep social interactions alive.

5.1.6 Takeaways from empathize and define stage

• Mental health is a complex subject and many things that seem like fact are
more ambivalent when under scrutiny. For example: the growing mental health
statistic in Sweden is not necessarily due to a growing mental health problem.
Other factors could be the reason for the trend, increased testing, for example.

• Phone use is by far the most represented and problematic technology in the
user group. As it is so relatable problematic in its use cases the final artifact
should in some way focus on the phone directly or indirectly.

• The user study clearly shows that the topic of social interaction is entangled
with one of mental health and technology. Many perceive technology as be-
ing in the way of more genuine social interactions and technology leading to
loneliness and by extension mental disorder. The artifact should in some way
incorporate these themes in order to resonate better with the user group.

• In many cases the future is synonymous with dystopia according to the user
group. The scenarios often contain climate change at its core. As it is such a
central theme the final prototype should encompass climate change in either
its use or setting/backstory.

• It is important now and going forward to be technology critical and not tech-
nology negative. Furthermore we need to generate ideas that embrace tech-
nology rather than disregard it, very much in the same way as the user group
sees their relationship towards technology. There are problems in the hu-
man/technology relationship but none of the interviewees expressed a want to
fully remove technology from their life. The question at hand is that of having
a healthy relationship towards technology.

37



5. Execution and Process

5.2 Ideate
During this stage our main focus was put on generating ideas based on the gained
understanding of the problems and the target group. In order to generate ideas,
we used a diverse set of methods from both human-centered design and speculative
design. The execution and takeaways are described in this section together with
concretization and final idea selecton.

5.2.1 Internal ideation
With help of different ideation methods and tools, we worked to create as many
ideas as possible. Firstly quantity over quality and further ahead in the process
narrowing them down to fewer ideas of high quality. The internal ideation consisted
of many iterations and was carried out throughout the whole project process. The
methods and tools used within the team are explained below.

Brainstorming

The brainstorming technique, see 4.7 was heavily used during the whole process. We
always strived for an open, non-judgemental environment where we felt comfortable
to communicate all ideas that came to mind, no matter how wild, and build on each
other’s ideas.

The Thing From the Future

This card game, see 4.8, was played early in the ideation process to widen our views
and look beyond solutions that are fully reasonable. The prompts given triggered
us to generate ideas in wild future scenarios. This was not always easy, seldom the
idea itself was the most interesting part but instead the accompanying backstory
and motivation. When looking at the ideas derived from this method they all had
something to say in a bigger context of human thoughts, needs, and desires. It was
after a successful pilot test of the method with two external participants that we
decided to use this as a method in the co-design workshops. We expected that the
method would reveal the user group’s feelings and visions of the future which, in
relation to the research questions, were more interesting to us than the ideas for
future products themselves.

Future Scan

Another tool used in the ideation phase was Future Scan. This chart of 150 potential
future scenarios served as inspiration and constraints which we ideated within. The
tool generated many interesting ideas, however the constraints led to ideas not
clearly connected to the topic of study. Our hypothesis was that if we make our
own list of potential future scenarios, based on our target group’s view of the future,
we could achieve more relevant ideas. Therefore we went through the categories in
the result of the interview analysis and tried to translate each of them into at least
one future scenario. We concretized the scenario in one sentence and stated how

38



5. Execution and Process

Age restrictions on internet access, 16+1. 

Internet is no longer anonymous but needs unique ID2. 

Ethical and psychological impact of technolgy is a 
mainstay topic in school3. 

Social media integrated into brain4. 

Possible to live whole life in VR5. 

Personalised input from reality6. 

Figure 5.6: The first couple of items on the 31 home brew future scan list.

far into the future it was taking place. This resulted in a list of 31 future scenarios
(see figure 5.6) which we then used for ideation. The ideas generated from this list
were highly connected to the topic of study, as predicted, and several of these ideas
helped shape the final concepts.

Imaginary Employer

When brainstorming on the topic we sometimes had difficulties concentrating our
thoughts into a specific product. This was probably because we had access to a
sizable data set but not a clear problem to tackle. As we are doing Speculative
Design there is no real problem to solve but rather a discussion to be had and we
felt uncomfortable in the role of provocateurs instead of problem solvers. To remedy
this we created several fictional organizations to work towards in order to hijack a
more problem solving approach that we felt more comfortable with.

By role-playing as designers employed at these organizations we were able to create
ideas that seemed more grounded and motivated. It also had the added effect of
making us let go of our personal values and adapt the values of the organization
at hand. Depending on the values of the organization the ideas could still be very
much critical in nature, or rather, cynical as they wholeheartedly embraced the value
centered approach of (some of) our fictional organizations.

39



5. Execution and Process

We had a very open approach to the topic and instead let ourselves be restrained
by the organization’s main expertise (For example: hardware or software) and val-
ues. However, we believe that with a clearer problem the approach can be used
effectively to ground early ideas and have a value centered approach. The method
also had an added effect of creating ideas with the underpinnings of a backstory, be-
ing produced by a fictional organization, making the ideas feel a bit more believable.

We decided to continue developing this method and created templates with empty
boxes each with a specific purpose for other designers to fill out and use.

Figure 5.7: A template of the Imaginary Employer method filled in by a Workshop
attendee.

5.2.2 Concretization and idea selection
After an intense period of ideation and iteration, all ideas were reviewed and the
most interesting 14 ones (see A.4) were picked based on a set of criteria presented
below. The criteria were created based on common and important aspects from
theory on speculative design artifacts, see 3.2, the research questions, see 1.2, the
relevance of the target group, see 5.1.5.2 and the interest of the team.

These 14 ideas were then concretized and evaluated using the same criteria as listed
above. Four of the ideas were then chosen to proceed with.

40



5. Execution and Process

Believeability How reasonable it seems that this design could exist in
the future

Provocativity The ability of the design to create a strong emotional
response from a user

Inclusivity To what extent the design builds on concepts that are
easily understood by the general public

Affordance To what extent the design clearly communicates its use
and functionality

Symbolosity To what extent the design is understood to be connected
to a social issue or future problem

Innovativity To what extent the design builds on novel ideas or novel
implementations of technology

Prototypeability To what extent it is possible to build a prototype of the
design, digital or physical

Testability To what extent it is possible to evaluate the design with
the user group

User group relevance How relevant the design’s topics, themes and function-
ality is to the user group young adults

Topic relevance To what extent the design engages in the field of mental
health in relation to technology

Reach To what extent it is possible to show/communicate the
design to a wide audience

Wow factor To what extent the design appears interesting at first
glance

Fun factor How engaging and challenging working with the design
is to us

Table 5.4: The 13 categories that were the basis for the weight matrix

In order to support the difficult decision of choosing the final concept, a weighted
matrix based of the criteria was used on the four ideas. This concept was to become
the main focus of the project after this point and therefore it had to be the idea with
the clearest connection to the user group and the idea that most clearly highlighted
the issues that are the main topic of the project. With this as background we
carefully evaluated every idea and decided that the idea with most potential was
“Electric Clothing”. The motivation for this decision was that the Electric Clothing
idea was perceived as being the idea with most potential in relation to the research
question. In contrast to many other ideas it embraced technology in an interesting
way, eliminating the risk of being perceived as retrograde. Furthermore, there was
interesting parallels between technology and human in the design. A connection that
we believed would be a good basis for bigger discussions on the topic of technology
use and mental health. To physically connect the person to the phone and powering

41



5. Execution and Process

Criteria Weight Digital Jammer Communal Computers Data Capsule Electric clothing

Believability 3 5 4.5 4 5
Provocativity 3 4 4 3,25 3,75
Inclusivity 2 4 4 4 3,5
Affordance 2,5 3 4 2,5 4
Symbolisity 2 4 2 3 5
Innovativity 1 3 3 2,25 4
Prototypeability 2,5 5 2 5 4
Testability 2 4 2 3 3,5
User-group relevance 2,5 4 4 2,5 5
Topic relevance 2,5 5 5 3 3
Reach 1 5 3 5 5
Wow factor 2,5 3 4 4 3
Fun factor 3 3,5 3,75 3,25 3,75

Weighted total 119,5 106,25 101,25 118

Table 5.5: The weight matrix

the device with body heat would amplify the feeling of the phone being an extension
of the self and therefore hopefully create interesting conversations on the topic of
human phone relationships. The idea also had the sought after environmental angle
that rhymed so heavily with the user group. Lastly we believed that the idea was
complex enough for development and that it could easily be developed further to
find new interesting avenues of discussion.

5.2.3 Result from ideate stage
In this section the four final concepts are explained. As well as motivations for why
they where relevant or not for the scope of this project.

Digital Jammer

In a world where our concentration is constantly split between reality and the dig-
ital, many yearn for a moment free of technology and a true social meeting with
other people, see 5.1.5.2. This artifact helps in this regard by jamming digital de-
vices in an area around it. By disturbing digital signals and functionality a user
can force those around them to focus on more physical activities hopefully creating
more genuine social situations.

Very clearly this concept is a comment on today’s digital society by putting into
view how much we let digital devices control and dictate how we live our lives. By
removing the possibility of technology, the users can reflect on how often they would
use technology if the jammer was not active. Additionally the very need of having a
product that forcefully removes an activity showcases how we seem to lack control
over our digital use.

42



5. Execution and Process

Figure 5.8: Infographic showcasing the experience of using the Digital Jammer

For the user groups this is highly relevant as one of the most common problems
mentioned in the data is how a conversation or social gathering can be undermined
by heavy phone use. Many users want to have a more grounded social experience
and get rid of the epidemic of “phone pauses” and “google disruptions”. In general
a majority expresses a want to use their phone less, see 5.1.5.2, something that this
device might encourage. See 5.1.5.2.

Lastly there is a privacy angle to the artifact as it will also disrupt any possibility
of recording or photos during its active use. This will create a more private setting
that