We had the quarter walk-around and the sit-down in this week. Below are the slides we went through in the walk-around. We learned a lot from faculty. We have also start our prototyping.
Week 4
blog
Week 3
After the playtesting and in-group meeting, we figured out the pain points and some possible solutions for this project. We bring these to the client and we did the simulation with Lorelei which helped us be clearer about how the process goes.
Painpoints >
- The portability (replace the actor)
- 9-12 simulations (3-4 mild, 3-4 mediate, 3-4 severe)
- usability for researchers: intuitive, simple and clear
Ideas: “360 Videos”
We did the competitive product research for more inspiration and need finding.
Four Options:
All Virtual Setting
All virtual environment with voice-actor recordings and pre-recorded animations
Pro:
- Easier to have flexibility of character appearance
- Finer control over character motion
- Virtual body of character straightforward addition
Con:
- Takes time to build different virtual environments
- Uncanny valley effect from virtual characters
360 Video
Footage of live actors in different environments. Facilitator activates different clips sentence-by-sentence.
Pro:
- Realistic
- Fast iteration: easier to create environments
- We will likely not have assets from SMU
- Easy to add scenarios in future
- John is experienced
Con:
- No fine-grained, puppet-like control over avatar actions
- Need multiple takes for character variations like ethnicity
- Hard to change any single component of footage, like remove tree from background, etc.
360 Video Filtered
360 Video with VFX filter to give more cartoonish or otherwise stylized experience
Pro:
- Realistic but not scary
- Portability
Fast iteration(meet the 9-12 simulations need)
Con:
- Variety
360 Video + Virtual Model
360 video environment with virtual model that uses voice-actor recordings and pre-recorded animations
Pro:
- More flexibility in modifying character (animating, styling, etc)
- Realism of character can be adjusted with different shader applied to the model
Con:
- Need to combine model and environment
After the meeting, we came up with the following metric for our project:
Below is a video for simulation session:
Problem:
How do we help a facilitator provide effective training to college-age girls to help them resist sexual harassment?
Design pillars:
- Realistic and immersive for guest
- Believable script/dialogue
- Believable acting
- Immersive environment
- Maintained if facilitator or context changes (portability)
- User-friendly
- Easy for facilitators to use
- Portable
- Replace the live actor
Technology
- VR
On the tech side, we are trying to apply 360 video to Unity. Below is a filtered video we tested in Unity.
On the art side, we finished the poster and the logo.
Week 2
With more and more ideas coming into our mind, the play testing helped us organize them in a logical way.
After the kick-off meeting with the client, we began to define the problem we are facing, figuring out the goal we are going to achieve at the end of this semester.
Defining the Problem
Research showed that the MVMC program is effective in encouraging young women from 18-22 to practice assertive resistance skills to reduce sexual violence. But the fact that the program is performed by real actors lowered its portability. How can we enhance the portability for more college students to use the program?
Goal
Educate the participants of the MVMC program that they can say no when facing sexual violence.
Emotionally prepared them for being confident to use the skills they learnt anytime they feel necessary.
Assumption
If we can design a simulation kit that participants can adjust the level of violence, we can substitute the actor by these simulations and enhance the portability of the MVMC program for broader education.
Target User
Young women from 18-22
Special Requirements
Facilitators need to be able to see what happens on the computer screen
At least 10-12 scenarios including difference in ethnicity, age, and gender.
At least 3 tiers –
Mild: entrance level of preventing people from violence
Moderate: for adolescents in schools who are facing pressure of sexual violence
Severe: clinical usage for people already have trauma
Easy enough to control these levels using 2 keys
Week 1
Welcome to the Full Stop team’s dev blog!
We’ll get straight to the point. This first week, we determined our respective roles and met our client, Lorelei, and briefly our advisers, Heather and John.
During our meeting with Lorelei we clarified our understanding of the project. Major takeaways:
My Voice My Choice (MVMC): Is a “90-minute assertive resistance training program that emphasizes skill practice in an immersive virtual environment” developed by Lorelei with Guidehall at Southern Methodist University (SMU).This program uses VR to help train high school girls in assertive resistance, a research proven effective method to reduce sexual victimization. “The goal is to make standing up (for oneself) automatic”.
The original program uses VR to simulate scenarios where high school girls would feel pressured and feel the need to stand up for themselves.
Problem we’re solving:
Our deliverable is a prototype that solves the following major problems:
Portability: The previous, feasibility test of the VR software for MVMC was very successful, but the way it is used involves an actor improvising live and controlling a VR character like a puppet to help train the guest. This is not portable; for example, this program cannot be given to a school guidance counselor because they would have to train actors of their own for each session. We’re trying to create a new version that would allow a single facilitator to run the session alone, using pre-recorded acting.
New content: We’d also like to make multiple scenarios that include different levels of difficulty and allow for a different range of avatar to simulate pressuring the guest, based on scenario descriptions Lorelei provides for us. Our target guest, for easier consent for playtesting, will be college girls.
Conception, Research and Pre-production
Lorelei expressed openness to different technological platforms and solutions. Ideas we’re exploring in addition to the original CG VR
- 360 video. Rather than CG scenarios, it may make sense to use 360 video, because it provides the immersion needed for program to be effective and even more realism. We’ve looked into example projects and pros and cons; more next week.
- We considered other ideas like networked VR, AR and cardboard
What’s next
We’re on the lookout for these things in production that need to be planned early and well:
- We need to convert scenarios into scripts for the actors we need
- We need to arrange for actors or voice actors and be able to give them clear instructions, material to work with, and direction
- Access to a motion capture studio will likely be needed if CG characters are involved
- Courtesy of Lorelei, next week we will be trying the training session ourselves to better understand it
- We really want also to know the needs of the facilitator and the training process of the actor
- We’re considering developing fast prototype as soon as possible, such as a proof-of-concept 360 video or paper prototypes for the scripts