CommunityCrit

CommunityCrit

project stats

duration: 12 weeks
my role: I participated in literature review and primary research. I led conceptual design and prototyping efforts. I project managed the system implementation and contributed front-end and back-end development.
teammates: Steven Dow, Narges Mahyar, Michelle Ng, Reggie Wu
paper: CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas through Micro-Activities (PDF, ACM)
website: cc.ucsd.edu

challenge

Develop an online system that engages more people in the urban design process

outcome

A generative platform that invites the public to complete brief “microactivities” to shape a local urban design project, such as submitting ideas or reviewing, critiquing, and improving those of their peers

I worked on a small team at the University of California San Diego to create and study a system for engaging the community in urban design projects online by incorporating crowdsourcing techniques. We partnered with a local group of community organizers focused on a major street in the neighborhood of East Village that the city was in the process of redesigning. By injecting community views into the process, the organizers sought to ensure the city’s plans aligned with local needs and maintained momentum. However, because the street continued into another neighborhood, Barrio Logan, it was important to involve their residents in the process yet few to none were engaged. Because the East Village organizers have previously proven successful influencing the city’s planning, if younger voices and the opinions of neighboring residents were excluded, the ultimate designs would not be for them. The project went from definition to launch in twelve weeks. 

Video abstract

PROCESS

We started by observing a workshop and walking tour that explored how the path in question could extend beyond the neighborhood to other destinations. Between responses to a survey we distributed at the event, our observations, and our transcription of the discussion, we built a better understanding of the limitations of the current system. One major problem was the inaccessibility of planning workshops themselves due to burdens such as transportation, lack of childcare, conflicts due to work schedule, and other challenges that made attending a workshop on a Saturday morning difficult. This inaccessibility influenced another problem: the homogeneity of the attendees. The participants were mostly white, older, and members of a local group interested in planning issues. There was a lack of younger voices and a lack of Chicano residents from the adjacent neighborhood Barrio Logan. Finally, another major problem with the workshop was the format of the discussion itself. Many attendees had numerous ideas and opinions that could not be expressed nor documented in the time available.

Our ultimate goal throughout all of our prototyping and design work was to develop a system community organizers could deploy that would allow community members who could not attend an in-person workshop to quickly contribute their perspective to the urban planning process. Our process from here out involved developing an idea, making a prototype, getting feedback, pivoting based on what we learned, and prototyping again. We used paper, Qualtrics surveys, Sketch, Invision, and HTML to prototype different user experiences to refine an experience for development. During this stage, we got feedback from two different community planning committees and attendees at one of their meetings.

With each prototype, we learned more and more about what worked and what did not. We found respondents needed a basic understanding of the project and the high-level design constraints such as the purpose of the project, the location, and the types of ideas sought. If questions were too open-ended they would not get answered, however, phase questions that are too specific may carry little value early in the design. Asking multiple questions about one central idea or topic was more successful than switching from topic to topic. Different people enjoy making different kinds of contributions, such as synthesis, idea generation, responding to someone else’s idea, or rating an idea. Allowing people to skip questions was an effective yet simple method for tailoring the experience to their interests. These insights—drawn from our different prototypes—came together in the design of our final system. At the time, it was hard to see the progress we were making, but once we got to the end, it was clear that with each iteration we grew stronger as a team and gained a better grasp of the design space, making each iteration faster than the one before.

The final system relied upon the insights we gained from creating and evaluating the prototypes and hinged upon a few key qualities that set it apart from its predecessors. Most importantly, the system was generative in how it selected activities for users to complete and how it pulled content other community members had contributed to seek feedback from the current user. This was a departure from our earlier iterations and from existing systems because the tool was no longer a black box nor were the questions canned. Additionally, the final system aimed to involve community members, not only in submitting complaints or suggestions, but in the active improvement and evaluation of their peers’ ideas—tasks often left to professional designers and planners. We were inspired by the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum, aiming to move beyond “informing” and “consulting” the public to “involving” and “collaborating” with them online.

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 3.26.57 PM.png

The final system focused on brief yet meaningful interactions—allowing community members to contribute as little or as much as they wanted. A short description of the project, its importance, and the process was shown first. Users could then submit new ideas for redesigning a specific intersection or improve existing ideas. If they chose the latter, they could pick any submitted idea and complete five questions related to it. We asked users to ponder the idea from a certain perspective, such as quality of life or mobility; to suggest a reference to something similar, such as a monument in another city; to evaluate the idea numerically across certain attributes; or to answer a peer-submitted question. Some activities pulled in additional content, such as asking the user to combine the idea with inspiration someone else had submitted. A user could skip a question or pick another idea to work on at any time. All ideas and their corresponding feedback were immediately available to the public after moderation to remove offensive language.

The system was built using the PHP framework Laravel and ran off a web server and MySQL database. The front-end relied on modified Bootstrap components and was responsive across all devices. We tracked how often users skipped or completed each type of activity and how long they spent.

OUTCOMES

Through a four-week deployment, CommunityCrit gathered 352 contributions from 39 people and produced new ideas that organizers rated as comparable to those generated during the face-to-face workshops. Feedback from community members and organizers and the significant use of the system during its deployment demonstrated its value and its resonance with the community. Think alouds with users informed our final version of the system and demonstrated that users embraced the experience as an opportunity to contribute, finding it easy to use, convenient, and engaging. When we reviewed the feedback the system collected from the community to organizers, they were amazed by the richness of the ideas and incorporated the input into their proposals.

The project accomplished our goal of creating a novel system that engages community members who have limited time and would not attend a face-to-face meeting, including their perspectives in the planning process. It also accomplished the objectives of the grant funding our work through the publication “CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas through Micro-Activities” which was accepted into the competitive 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. I am proud of the project’s inventive approach, which solved for problems we did not set out to address, such as allowing for collaboration.

The project is not without its limitations. It would have benefited from greater interactions with end users and low or medium fidelity prototyping of the final solution before development. While the system reaches more individuals by removing scheduling, geographical, and transportation constraints, barriers are still present in that the system requires access to a smartphone or computer. We view the system as a tool for expanding engagement, not a comprehensive approach for reaching all relevant individuals. Therefore, other methods, such as workshops and canvassing are still necessary to cast the widest net. Additional work is necessary to evaluate how this approach, which was effective for the early stages of an urban design project focused on a single intersection, fares in other contexts and scales. For the system to function outside of the research context it would need better recruiting strategies, tools for making sense of large volumes of text responses, and a more streamlined administration interface so community organizers or governmental officials could manage the process themselves.

Tools Towards Trust

Tools Towards Trust

project stats

methods: concept maps, expert interviews, secondary research (analysis of trends and statistics), retrospective interviews, inquiries on Reddit, design probes, participatory design workshops
my role: I planned and facilitated primary research with subject matter experts, stakeholders, and end users. I visually documented our research and contributed to the conceptual design of the toolkit. I defined and prototyped the card game in low and high fidelities.
teammates: Meghan Clark, Zeyneb Majid
duration: 16 weeks

challenge

Support employees who are affected by the impacts of trauma

outcome

A toolkit that helps novice managers shape a trauma-informed workplace

 

Finding a Beginning

Tasked with pursuing a humanitarian project, I reflected on the social problems that matter to me.

I explored the social problems that matter to me, what I can contribute, who I should team up with, and moments in which I have felt compelled to intervene.

My peers did the same and we each shared the topic we were most drawn to.

For me it was mental health and I was fortunate to find affinity with my soon-to-be teammates, who were drawn to public health, women’s issues, and the impacts of trauma on employees.

From there, we looked for commonality between these domains.

I sketched this concept map as we discussed what drew us to each problem.

We decided to pursue the problem space that Meghan originally framed: supporting employees who have trauma that impacts their experience in the workplace.

Framing Our Design Challenge

Method: Problem Framing

From there, we each practiced IDEO’s method of Framing Your Design Challenge.

We all had slightly different takes on the problem at hand and how we could address it so this exercise helped us align.

In particular, I observed that some of us defined our task at hand very specifically:

How might we build the social networks of women who have experienced trauma?

While others took broader strokes:

What are challenges that trauma survivors face in professional settings and how can we help them cope with them?

Once we decided to center our efforts around the impacts of trauma in the workplace, we created this concept map.

While my teammates wanted to move forward on a specific idea, I encouraged us to keep exploring the problem space before selecting an intervention.

As the only human-centered design practitioner within the group, I learned a great deal about collaborating with colleagues from scientific and management backgrounds.

The uncertainty inherent in wicked problems and human-centered design was often uncomfortable but we persevered.

When In Doubt, Talk to People

Methods: Post In Online Forum, Expert Interviews

We posted in a PTSD subreddit and received very candid responses.

Due to the sensitive nature of our problem space, it was not practical for us to directly recruit employees with trauma.

Zeyneb had the wonderful idea of using Reddit to seek stories from the people we were designing for. This allowed individuals to maintain their anonymity.

 

We spoke with a local university professor who recently joined the county’s Office of Children, Youth, and Family. She studies the impact of violence on youth, which offered us pragmatic and scholarly perspectives on these topics.

We spoke with a university staff member who specializes in reducing sexual violence which helped us consider what we are including when we say “trauma”.

We “Downloaded Our Learnings" then made a crude affinity diagram.

We found:

  • people with trauma face enormous barriers in their workplaces

    • they are forced to work in conditions that are unfair for anyone

    • they are frequently bombarded by triggers that resurface the trauma

  • the need to disclose a disability in order to get support within a workplace is a big barrier

  • disclosing requires a certain level of trust in one’s manager and employer which isn’t always there

  • some people were offered flexibility at work, but they still had to go out of their way to stay afloat

  • we needed to learn more about different causes for trauma and how they might shape the focus and applicability of our project

    • trauma could develop from sexual violence, neighborhood violence, military service, neglect, etc.

  • opportunities exist to increase knowledge sharing between affected individuals and to make workplaces more supportive of these individuals

Charting the Landscape

Methods: Secondary Research, Studying Adjacent Problems

To add context to the perspectives we gathered, we dove into secondary research to understand historical events and the current state, influencers, and trends.

We found:

  • the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the primary force that compels employers to accommodate employees

    • however, it is not without limitations: it requires than an employee is able to perform all essential job functions without an accommodation and it allows an employer to refuse an accommodation that is “unreasonable”

  • employers that are leaders when it comes to supporting vulnerable employees weave support for wellness into their culture and benefits

  • individuals with disabilities are significantly underemployed compared to able individuals

  • employers lose a great deal of value (money, time, productivity) when their employees with disabilities are left unsupported

I mapped the many people a survivor of trauma might encounter. This offered us a way to identify alternative entry points for an intervention.

Narrowing our focus

“The information needed to understand the problem
depends upon one's idea for
solving it.” –Horst Rittel

At this point we had a firm grasp of how we could intervene so it was time to identify an area of opportunity to pursue.

As Rittel says, there’s only so much you an understand about a wicked problem before you settle on a way to address it.

We went back to the whiteboard to articulate our top ideas.

ideas-for-interventions.png

We identified leverage points at different scales, such as changing the physical workplace environment, educating employees, or shifting employers’ mindsets.

DIVING INTO THE ADA PROCESS

Because we knew the ADA was a major component, I interviewed the Equal Opportunity Services Associate at our university to learn about the process by which employees are accommodated.

Using elements of contextual design, I generated detailed interpreted notes and a sequence flow diagram.

I created this high-level sequence flow diagram of the Interactive ADA process as practiced by Carnegie Mellon University based on an interview with an EOS Associate.

The interview illuminated the Interactive ADA process and highlighted many of the barriers to attaining this type of official support, such as obtaining a diagnosis, disclosing a disability, and establishing and implementing a reasonable accommodation plan.

PICKING OUR PATH FORWARD

Our research up to this point drew us to access to accommodations as the critical leverage point within the system.

We framed our design challenge again, defining this problem statement:

Professionals who have had traumatic experiences are sometimes burdened while in the workplace, due to triggers or the fear of them. This impacts their ability to feel safe at work and perform at a high level to retain their job.

We knew we wanted to have this impact:

Support survivors of trauma so that they may succeed in corporate environments despite their illness.

So we asked these design questions:

How might we empower employees who have experienced trauma to learn about and seek accommodations without sacrificing safety or privacy?

How might we make granting accommodations attractive and feasible for employers?

THE INEVITABLE PIVOT

At this point we were excited about addressing our problem space by making accommodations easier to obtain. So we met with a local organization, Center for Victims, to learn more.

Their Medical Director and Director of Outreach spoke with us about the causes and neurological impacts of trauma, the current state of workplace support for individuals with trauma, and their approach to supporting these individuals.

After this discussion, I created a visual framework illustrating the differences between organizations’ policies, practices, and norms regarding disability.

To our surprise, they avoided giving out diagnoses and highlighted the limitations of an accommodations-based system.

Instead, they advocated for what they call trauma-informed workplaces.

In these environments, the culture, practices, and policies of the workplace are structured to ensure a welcoming and supportive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma.

 

designing participatory probes

To help us respond to this new information, I facilitated exercises to establish a persona and articulate our primary insights.

We discussed who we were designing for when it came to employees with trauma and who we were not. Most significantly, we settled on employees who work in office settings who have experienced a traumatic event more than 6 months prior and are now trying to cope.

We discussed who we were designing for when it came to employees with trauma and who we were not. Most significantly, we settled on employees who work in office settings who have experienced a traumatic event more than 6 months prior and are now trying to cope.

We identified a series of insight statements then picked the ones with the most potential to shift the system.

We identified a series of insight statements then picked the ones with the most potential to shift the system.

I came up with a number of participatory design probes to help us identify an intervention.

One activity I wrote asked employees and employers how they would respond to different situations in which an employee has a certain need.

This formed the basis for a card game that turned into the cornerstone of the intervention we ultimately pursued.

Developing and Validating Our Intervention

As we worked to put our participatory design probes in front of people, we realized we also needed to define the persona of the manager who would obtain our intervention.

We spoke with a manager who recalled the beginning of his career when he felt unequipped to deal with the personal challenges that affected employees within the workplace.

This led us to steadfastly pursue the design of a toolkit for “millennial managers” that would help them transition their organizations into trauma-informed workplaces.

Conducting Participatory Workshops

We conducted two participatory workshops. They served to teach us about the expectations of employees and managers but also to evaluate the components of our toolkit.

One workshop was with a local organization, Small Seeds, which we connected with through one of the experts we interviewed. It supports children and families within the community.

Our second workshop was with a business unit of our university, which I recruited.

Each workshop involved three parts:

  • a worksheet that listed different events and asked whether each counted as a trauma

  • playing of the card game in small groups

  • discussion of the experience of the workshop and feedback on the two probes

Employees of local non-profit Small Seeds play an early version of the card game during a participatory design workshop.

Employees of local non-profit Small Seeds play an early version of the card game during a participatory design workshop.

Polishing Our Intervention and Approach

The workshops taught us:

  • managers found the act of having to choose then speak aloud their recommendations a very effective opportunity to practice these difficult conversations

  • for individuals in the smaller organization, speaking about this content felt natural whereas individuals in the larger organization felt they would ask someone in HR to handle it

  • the activity of determining what counts as trauma led most people to feel that anything could be trauma for someone depending on the context; it was also triggering for some people

We scheduled a conversation with two individual’s from the university’s HR Professional Development team. They were impressed by the role playing activity.

However, they felt they would want to bring in an expert in the mental health or trauma recovery fields to lead this kind of workshop, given the sensitive nature of the content.

OUR PROPOSAL

We ultimately proposed a toolkit that an HR department could order which would include:

  • a worksheet to help team members reflect on the many sources of trauma

  • a card game to help the team practice asking for and offering support across different scenarios

  • informational resources about trauma and how to shape a trauma-informed workplace

It is intended for use by a specialist or an HR professional to facilitate conversations with managers.

One player is the “employee” who is given a  person  card, a  position  card, and a few  situation  cards to read aloud. The other players—”managers”—then choose from their  response  cards the best and worst option for this employee. After they each read their option aloud, the “employee” choose their preferred response and explains why. (view  instructions  and  cards )

One player is the “employee” who is given a person card, a position card, and a few situation cards to read aloud. The other players—”managers”—then choose from their response cards the best and worst option for this employee. After they each read their option aloud, the “employee” choose their preferred response and explains why. (view instructions and cards)