Before we received feedback on our ideas Daniel asked us to consider what our problem statement is and if it needs to exist. This was crucial thinking in seperating the three ideas down to one idea for me and has been something I have had to consider.
Thoughts from Daniel and the group were at what point are users past the point of a technology notice, is the system informing them too late? There were too many logistal issues with this idea and although it seems futuristic and creative, the actual process of building and creating it is not realistic for current technology. Apple also already does something similar with heart monitoring but not to the same extent. Overall this idea was viewed as the weakest idea.
Thoughts from Daniel and the group were that this idea is interpersonal and would have a large impact on lives. It would make many people’s lives easier including the carers of people with autism. The problem statement is solid and there is a need for it so idea in general is good, could be narrowed or widened depending on the scope.
Thoughts from Daniel and the group were that this idwa had too much scope at the moment and needed narrowed. Is it a tool for leaders to assist session planning or is it a tool to be interacted with by children? Too many questions around it at the moment and doesn’t seem out of the three ideas the one with the most potential and impact through soliving the problem. If this is the idea I am most passionate about we could make it work.
Leaving he feedback group I felt more swayed toward idea 2 than i was before entering the session, prior to the conversations I was 50:50 between idea 2 and 3 but after the groups feedback and Daniel’s advice the VR idea seemed more forward thinking and was a bigger problem to solve. Moving forward I am going to research further into these two areas to clarify my decision.