Saturday, 18 December 2010
Friday, 17 December 2010
What If.. Final Designs
Website
Blog posts and updates.
Features many photographs of graffiti in Leeds, categorised by their location.
Image enlarged when clicked.
Interactive Google Maps showing its whereabouts.
Poster
Flyers
Presentation Boards
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
What If... Self Evaluation
What problem did you identify?
As a group, our collective theme was the visual landscape in Leeds. Graffiti is a problem all over the UK and most evidently, in Leeds. However, the majority of people ridicule this artform due to its negative associations - it is usually seen in areas where crime is rife, deters businesses from moving into the area etc. We therefore wanted to change the negative stigma into a positive one and try to make the artform more socially acceptable - though not to encourage it.
What evidence did you find to support your decisions?
As a group, we initially looked into graffiti individually to find any important articles, statistics or facts which would help support that this is a current problem which needs to be solved. You can find my research here. Alongside this, Chris and Yafet asked a diverse range of people from all ages their views on graffiti in Leeds to gain insight whether residents believe it is a true problem.
What methods did you use to gather your evidence and what forms did it take?
The majority of our research was secondary and that consisted of looking at news articles, statistics and facts. This originated from the Leeds government website and a wide range of other sites publishing their own findings. Yafet and Chris also asked for peoples views and opinions on graffiti - though no statistical date was involved; this formed our qualitative research. However, we realised that we lacked in primary quantitative research therefore, aforementioned, we devised further surveys and questionnaires to ask the residents on the graffiti what they thought of graffiti through yes or no questions. This enabled us to devise percentages, statistics and figures alongside a specific question which we could then present in an informative way. We also took photographs of graffiti around Leeds to show graffiti is evident and it therefore may be seen as a destructive or negative art form.
What methods of research did you find useful and why?
I believe the primary quantitative research most informative as we could display, effectively and concisely, the true views of people in Leeds and not just the odd, worded opinion we found in a news article from a few years ago. However, there were some facts and statistics which we would be unable to find therefore secondary research proved effective, also.
How did these inform your response to your problem?
We needed the primary research to gain insight into what people thought of graffiti in Leeds. If all the responses proved that no-one deemed it as a negative artform, there was no point trying to solve an unrealistic problem.
What methods did you encounter as problematic?
Although we asked a diverse range of people in Leeds, we could ask even more residents to obtain a more substancial amount of research - however, this was not necessary for this as it was evident that graffiti was deemed a problem. The secondary research was gathered from various sources therefore the content in another may be exaggerated due to the biased nature of the article or the complete opposite etc. We therefore did not know if it was 100% accurate hence why the primary research was the most effective.
How did you overcome this?
Aforementioned, we devised our own surveys and questionnaires and formulated these into charts to display in our presentation.
What research could you have carried out that would have proved more useful?
Although we sourced many worded opinions and factual data, all of this was proving that graffiti was deemed as socially unnaceptable and therefore formed the problem we needed to solve. However, we could have researched the positives in more depth to strengthen our ideas.
Five things that I have learnt about the design process:
1) You should not settle on one idea based on a limited amount of research but explore a range of possible design solutions instead.
2) Gather an extensive amount of research and target a more specific area suited to the problem rather than covering something far too broad and ultimately useless.
3) Research is as important as the final outcome - without proper knowledge, the outcome will not be as successful if you looked at the root of the problem in more depth.
4) Continue researching and gathering information throughout the design process instead of following a forumulated plan i.e. Research for 1 week, development for the next 2 and final outcome for the final week.
5) Gather research from all possible sources - don't rely on websites for information.
As a group, our collective theme was the visual landscape in Leeds. Graffiti is a problem all over the UK and most evidently, in Leeds. However, the majority of people ridicule this artform due to its negative associations - it is usually seen in areas where crime is rife, deters businesses from moving into the area etc. We therefore wanted to change the negative stigma into a positive one and try to make the artform more socially acceptable - though not to encourage it.
What evidence did you find to support your decisions?
As a group, we initially looked into graffiti individually to find any important articles, statistics or facts which would help support that this is a current problem which needs to be solved. You can find my research here. Alongside this, Chris and Yafet asked a diverse range of people from all ages their views on graffiti in Leeds to gain insight whether residents believe it is a true problem.
What methods did you use to gather your evidence and what forms did it take?
The majority of our research was secondary and that consisted of looking at news articles, statistics and facts. This originated from the Leeds government website and a wide range of other sites publishing their own findings. Yafet and Chris also asked for peoples views and opinions on graffiti - though no statistical date was involved; this formed our qualitative research. However, we realised that we lacked in primary quantitative research therefore, aforementioned, we devised further surveys and questionnaires to ask the residents on the graffiti what they thought of graffiti through yes or no questions. This enabled us to devise percentages, statistics and figures alongside a specific question which we could then present in an informative way. We also took photographs of graffiti around Leeds to show graffiti is evident and it therefore may be seen as a destructive or negative art form.
What methods of research did you find useful and why?
I believe the primary quantitative research most informative as we could display, effectively and concisely, the true views of people in Leeds and not just the odd, worded opinion we found in a news article from a few years ago. However, there were some facts and statistics which we would be unable to find therefore secondary research proved effective, also.
How did these inform your response to your problem?
We needed the primary research to gain insight into what people thought of graffiti in Leeds. If all the responses proved that no-one deemed it as a negative artform, there was no point trying to solve an unrealistic problem.
What methods did you encounter as problematic?
Although we asked a diverse range of people in Leeds, we could ask even more residents to obtain a more substancial amount of research - however, this was not necessary for this as it was evident that graffiti was deemed a problem. The secondary research was gathered from various sources therefore the content in another may be exaggerated due to the biased nature of the article or the complete opposite etc. We therefore did not know if it was 100% accurate hence why the primary research was the most effective.
How did you overcome this?
Aforementioned, we devised our own surveys and questionnaires and formulated these into charts to display in our presentation.
What research could you have carried out that would have proved more useful?
Although we sourced many worded opinions and factual data, all of this was proving that graffiti was deemed as socially unnaceptable and therefore formed the problem we needed to solve. However, we could have researched the positives in more depth to strengthen our ideas.
Five things that I have learnt about the design process:
1) You should not settle on one idea based on a limited amount of research but explore a range of possible design solutions instead.
2) Gather an extensive amount of research and target a more specific area suited to the problem rather than covering something far too broad and ultimately useless.
3) Research is as important as the final outcome - without proper knowledge, the outcome will not be as successful if you looked at the root of the problem in more depth.
4) Continue researching and gathering information throughout the design process instead of following a forumulated plan i.e. Research for 1 week, development for the next 2 and final outcome for the final week.
5) Gather research from all possible sources - don't rely on websites for information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)