Words by Colette Duong
Focusing on the Week 6 group session, I participated in establishing and expanding problem statements with three other students. This key process intended to facilitate the potential direction of our individual design proposition.
In class, we each developed our own problem statements, which was not particularly easy as I was confused with the degree of specificity for our diagnosis of the issue; in retrospect, my answers to the problem cues (who, what, when, where, why) were broad. However, after a short interrogation on why we originally chose to research online privacy and what areas of it we were interested in allowed me to specify cyber-crime as one that always held my attention. My group members provided a lot of assistance with creating a succinct, problem statement for me as I couldn’t find the appropriate wording. Originally my wording was: “Participating in online criminal activity feels less consequential because it is not physical”, which after feedback converted to: “The lack of physical consequences/interventions when committing cyber-crimes have desensitised users who commit them”.
After we individually decided on a problem statement, the cooperative process of evolving it with alternatives of investigation began. It was reinforced that working in groups of four would be ideal, having fifteen-minute time allotments for each member to maximise the ideation process for their chosen statement. We didn’t discuss the possibilities of generative systems, service design, or data visualisation in precise detail, but instead points of interest that might inform our decision on one of the three.
Ultimately, this group session felt like an important transition from our extensive research and communal mapping to forming the foundation of our design practice. Instead of working individually, participating in a group felt essential and beneficial in formulating concepts, especially at this imperative stage of the process.