Remote Concerts
Contents
Project Description
This project is about in what way can online concerts be conducted and billed so that visitors are satisfied and artists can earn a living. The main objective of the project is to overcome the in-site aspect of concerts, while keeping all the salient aspects of the real-life experience, for both artists and concert attendants.
Group Collaboration
At the beginning of the project we discussed our strenghts and weaknesses and how we want to collaborate during the project. Belbins Team role model serves as a basic concept how we define our roles.
Background knowledge on music industry
We shared a basic understanding of the Music Industry to help put into a wider context the lived experiences of artists in relation to their industry. In doing so, we understood some of the complexities, in relation to the Music Industry, in operating a concert platform.
Contextual Inquiry
Contextual inquiry can be seen as a combinational use of different methods with the goal to disclose work structures, explore usage and environment of existing technology, and get ideas about future development of a product or system.
It usually can be accomplished within four steps:
- narrowing down the question or purpose
- choosing data collection method
- investigating in the context
- analysing and interpreting the findings
Since music events depend on visitors and artists our Contextual Inquiry gets devided on these sub groups.
We define users' perspective as the user experience as part of attending:
- a virtual music event
- a virtual non music event
- a live music event
We define artists' perspective as the user experience as a part of performing within the context of:
- a virtual music event
- a virtual non music event
- a live music event
Objectives
In general we are interested in learning about the user experience of artists and visitors of a virtual music event.
More specifically we want to understand:
| Users' perspective | Artists' perspective |
| motives behind attending and not attending a music event (virtually or live) | motives behind taking or not taking a gig (virtually or live) |
| engagement and interaction with other people including the artist from that event | impact of audience feedback in virtual and live settings |
| technological tools behind virtual music events (mostly during the event) | technological tools behind virtual music events (preparation and actual event) |
| experience and improvements to virtual music events | experience and improvements to virtual music events |
Data Collection
To learn more about the objectives we use interviews, surveys and observation.
| method | Users' perspective | Artists' perspective | ||
| experienced in virtual music events (a) | not experienced in virtual music events (b) | experienced in virtual music events | not experienced in virtual music events | |
| surveys | 1. What are factors that make live music events enjoyable? What motivates you to attend a live music event? 2. Have you participated in virtual music events?
|
no survey | ||
| interviews |
1. What usually motivates you to attend a live music event?
|
1. As an artist, what does it mean for you to perform a gig?
| ||
| oberservation | observation domain: 1. Audience Interaction 2. Audience Feedback 3. Technology
| |||
Results
In the following chapters participation rates and representative examples of results will be presented for each of the utilized data collection methods. In the interpretation, section will be a description of our insight-making process and the final results of it.
Surveys
Users' Perspective
Survey period: 27th May 2021 - 2nd June 2021
Platform: google forms
Distribution: collaboration with Rave the Planet, a company that organizes festivals
Participants: 60
implementation of user survey on google forms
Interview
| Users' perspective | Artists' perspective |
|
Interview period: 5th May 2021 - 14th May 2021
|
Interviews period: 8th May 2021 - 25th May 2021
|
implementation of interview protocols in google documents
Observation
Overall five virtual music events have been visited and observed:
8th May 2021 - Shanghai Community Radio (SHCR)
10th May 2021 - xJazz festival
11th May 2021 - xJazz festival
14th May 2021 - xJazz festival
15th May 2021 - xJazz festival
screenshots of the observed platforms
Link to the observation protocol google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OPbP6Pw3i8EA2uU3igCzpzu3MsA5_y9Cde5_2QXqS_4/edit?usp=sharing
implementation of observation protocol on google sheets
Insight-making
Our insight-making process for the interview was as follows: Each of us read through all the interviews and recorded the most important bits of information on a virtual notepad.
Subsequently, we group all the information on a table into different categories. This table serves as a basis for further work like personas, scenarios and focus group.
A similar insight-making approach has been used for the observations. The protocol google sheet was read and summed up into cohesive insights which were then grouped into the three domains.
implementation of the insight making process
final interpretation of the results
observation insights
Link to the Miro-table.pdf: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1awNgOwgO7652lOXdgrelSLz9XZ6mpv0W
interview insights
Focus Group
general information
date: 14th June 2021
participants: Users (2) and artists (3)
oberserver: Prof. Kolrep
material
- script and agenda
- Zoom room
- Nuudel time slot poll
- miro board
Procedures
| Item | Description | Time |
| Introduction | background of the student project camera and muting rules confidentiality for recording |
2min |
| Information | presentation of most important findings so far | 8min |
| Ice Breaker | participants are asked to shortly introduce themselfs, tell what made them happy last week and then choose the next person to continue |
7min |
| Round Robin | The Focus Group is presented with a question. After 1min reflection time, one participant (No.1) is asked to share their thoughts out loud,then pass it on to the next person (No.2). This person will have 30 seconds thinking time before contributing an additional point, idea, or thought, building off the thought of the person before.
|
25min
|
| Brain Storming | Participant were asked to write their thoughts about how their ideal remote concert platform would look like on sticky notes in a miro board. There was no restriction of which aspects can be included, however we gave the following hints features, visuals, functions and service. |
10min |
| Wrap Up | expressing our thanks to the participants | 3min |
Results
Everything the participants were mentioning is potentially valuable to us. Therefore 2 of us were focusing on taking notes. In addition we have a recording of the whole sessions to re-watch.
On top of that we have the miro board with all ideas provided by the participants during the brain storm activity.
results of the brain storming phase
Modeling
User Stories
Based on our data from Contextual Inquiry and Focus Group we were able to form user stories. After the initial collection was done, we indicated user stories that were adressing the same aspect as another in grey colour, so we could focus on unique aspects.
user stories
Requirements
With the data collection via interview, observation, survey and focus group we were able to identify requirements for our future platform. For some of them we already noted ideas for future implementation in form of product qualities.
Identified requirements of artists.
Identified requirements of users.
Personas
We tried to capture and represent our participants from the different methods into these personas.
Translation of our findings into three personas, one artist and two user.
Use Cases and Scenarios
In both use cases and scenarios certain keywords are marked. This indicates that the respective aspect relates to an identified requirement.
Typical use case and scenario of an artist on GiGGD.
Typical use case and scenario of a simple user on GiGGD.
Typical use case and scenario of an engaging user on GiGGD.
Findings
This is a short summary of our main findings. In the next chapter, these findings translate into tangible ideas for future implementation and a first visualization.
Summary of our main findings.
Outlook - Future Implementation
Future elements of our platform.
First visualization of our platform.
Methods evaluation
At the end of the first part of the project we evaluated the usefulness of the different methods. Each team member rated all methods on a 5 point scale and elaborated on their decision.
We calculated a rounded average and summarized the mentioned aspects.
Internal evaluation of the usefulness of the methods for this particular project.
Prototype
Taking up the results from last semester we decided on implementing and testing three main functions of the Giggd platform: Feedback to the artist based on lighting colors, optional chat for engaging users, and a tipping system. For the prototype we used Figma, because it offers a broad range of functionalities and unlimited screens. No matter how extensive our prototype becomes, Figma can cater for it. In the next chapters we will describe the implementation of the main functions. In addition we present a first draft of research questions we hope to answer.
main screen of the prototype.
Access to the latest version: https://www.figma.com/proto/h4I6jPtcsDJc4A6xf0CJqo/GiGGD?node-id=55%3A371&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1&starting-point-node-id=55%3A371&show-proto-sidebar=1
First research questions
Tipping System
- Is tipping only a feasible business model? (highly impactful but not feasible)
- Will people appreciate there is a tipping function and use it? (impactful and somewhat feasible)
💡The question above may be done in a post-testing interview.
- Are the amounts we offer appropriate? (really feasible)
- If there is manual input, how many people will use manual vs clickable options?
💡The two questions above are connected and can be tested with scenarios (e.g. "imagine yourself in a virtual concert...")
- How to attract people's attention to tipping and cause action without being too intrusive? (really feasible)
- Is the tipping function visible to the user (i.e. find the tipping function without observed difficulty within a reasonable amount of time)? (really feasible)
- When users decide to tip, do they find the tipping function easy-to-use (i.e. complete the task of tipping without observed hesitation and/or difficulty)?
Chat function
- Is the chat function visible to the user?
- Are the users willing to engage in conversations taken place in a chatbox?
- Do users like the existence of a chatbox?
💡 Can be tested via scenario tasks like "go talk with other concert attendee" or having a pop up notification for new chat messages
Color Feedback
- Considering different colours may have different meanings for different people, do our associations of colour-mood resonate with users?
- If we train the users with our colour-mood associations, will users accept them?
- Do users understand the intention behind the colour response functionality?
- Is the amount of colour option we offer "too much" or "enough"?
- How do users understand the feedback?
- Do people understand the purpose of the colours?
- What kind of emotions do concert goers usually have?
💡 Ideas for testing: use photoshoots and coloured lightbulbs, with each lightbulb corresponding to one concert participant
Heuristic Evaluation
In the first part of the testing phase we took advantage of the two groups and let the prototypes undergo a heuristic evaluation by the other team. To enhance the process, we provided an evaluation package which consisted of access to the prototype on Figma, an evaluation scenario, and a table with pre-selected criteria with explanations of the context.
Product Description
Name of the product: giggd
Purpose of the product / intended use: conduct and bill online concerts in a way that visitors are satisfied and artists can earn a living
Usage context: entertainment
Typical users:
- engaging users
- passive users
Evaluation Scenario
Imagine yourself in a virtual concert, you have the following tasks:
- You have a ticket code of "123 XYZ" and wish to enter the virtual concert.
- You are impressed by the performance. You know that without having to pay for a ticket, tipping is the only way you can contribute to the earnings of the performer, and therefore, you decide to give a tip by clicking one of the amounts.
- You wish to engage with other concert goers, and therefore, you wish to talk to them virtually and start a chat by typing "This is so good!".
- You feel engaged by the performance and really hope to give some feedback for the artist to see. Therefore, you find the color response buttons and try them one by one. Don't forget to notice that each color response corresponds to different mood/reactions. So before you click any of them, hover your mouse over the color button and read about what this color stands for in a giggd environment.
Results:
| Criteria | Meaning for Giggd | Severity Index* | Comment |
| Usability | Can you complete your tasks without hesitation and/or difficulty? | 2 | We would expect the tip window to close after we tipped |
| Usability | 1 | We would like to see the amount we already tipped somewhere | |
| Usability | 1 | Has method of payment been put in / maybe give user choice to confirm again | |
| Usability | 3 | Chat: we would like to see who wrote what message, maybe a nickname or something | |
| Usability | 2 | It would be good to see how many other people are watching. For example small window in the corner | |
| Usability | 2 | Being able to see what colours others have chosen, for example when hovering over the colour | |
| Usability | 3 | The blue square means two different things. On the starting page it means entering the concert, later on it means full screen. On the starting page it would be helpful if you could just click on the image and then enter the space instead of having to click the blue square | |
| Visibility | Do you find the functions of tipping, chatting, and color response without difficulty within a reasonable amount of time? | 1 | "Tips" can be ambiguous, maybe a dollar sign would be helpful and help have less writing |
| User's Language | Considering different colors may have different meanings for different people, do our associations of color-mood resonate with you? Do you find the description of the color responses comprehensible? |
2 | Cute und sad are fitting colours, chilled not as intuitive
Meaning of angsty unclear White simplistic icons over the colours could be helpful, for example a hammock for chilled to make using the colours more intuitive. An additional category we all resonated with could be "Goosebumps" |
| Self-Decriptiveness | Are the functions of the color response, tipping, and chatbox clear and comprehensible? | 1 | Three dots in tip section: our expectation is that you can choose amount, but not 100% sure |
| Self-Decriptiveness | 2 | Colours: how long do the colours stay? What happens when I click them? Expectation from us would be that they change artist colour and then disappear again. Potentially clarify | |
| Self-Decriptiveness | 2 | Chat: have some sort of cue faded in grey in the chat box like "start chatting to other concert goers" | |
| Appropriateness of options | Is the amount of color options appropriate? Are the options of tipping amount appropriate? | 1 | Chat: to increase interactivity it could be fun to be able to react to comments in the chat through emojis |
| Simplicity | Is the interface simple and straightforward? | 1 | Starting page: We would expect the "next gigs" to automaticly swipe through after a few seconds (maybe just not possible in the prototype?) |
| Simplicity | 1 | Merch: What is meant by merch? Merch from the artists? Or from giggd? |
* (1) cosmetic (2) minor (3) major (4) disaster
Prototype Adaptations
Based on the Heuristic Evaluation we identified 13 suggestions regarding design and functionality of our prototype. In the following section we present all 13 aspects together with our considerations.
After this table we present screenshots of our prototype.
| Potential adaptations based on HE | our considerations |
| The scenario should make clear that each audience control only one light bulb | We adapted the scenario accordingly |
| Change angsty to goosebump in the color panel | We changed the emotion accordingly |
| Adding icons to explain the emotions | This might make things easier to understand, but we would rather like to test whether it is neccessary for understanding. If not we would prefer cleaner design without icons. |
| Adding a lable (e.g. $) next to "Tips" | We adpated accordingly |
| Adding a viewer count | This is more of an additional function rather than an usability issue. |
| Including user names in the chat | Contextual Inquiry revealed that only few really use and want communications in virtual events. We decided to "slim" all forms of communication. Therefore usernames are not needed. But we will test it again. |
| Having a hint in the chatbox | We adapted accordingly |
| Entering the concert by clicking on the image vs. extending the screen | We decided to leave as is, but to focus on the button in our testing. |
| Being able to see what emotions other users chose | This is more of an additional function rather than an usability issue. Also normally, you only controll one light bulb, so you allways see what others choose. |
| Adding a function to like comments in the chat | This is more of an additional function rather than an usability issue. |
| Having automated next gigs carousal in the menu | Interesting suggestion, but the next gigs section is not our concern at the current stage. |
| Indicating what merch is available | The reason behind this suggestion is that users can not be sure if they will find merch from artist or from Giggd. In this situation we actually see an advantage, because users will visit to find out. |
| Making the Confirmation of the tipping more clear, without the need for clicking twice | We adapted accordingly |
Final prototype for testing
entering the concert
main menu
concert expanded view
tipping the artist
leaving a comment
using the color feedback
Access to the latest version: https://www.figma.com/proto/h4I6jPtcsDJc4A6xf0CJqo/GiGGD?node-id=55%3A371&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1&starting-point-node-id=55%3A371&show-proto-sidebar=1
Usability Testing
To test our new prototype, we decided to mainly take a qualitative approach with the addition of one quantitative measure.
Participants received a document that contained a scenario that explains the context of usage and four different tasks to solve on the platform. The tasks were focusing the main features we wanted to test as well as the entering process to the platform. The whole testing was done via the video-call platform Zoom. While participants were interacting with the system they shared their screen, so the researcher could observe the interactions. In addition participants were instructed to think out loud - verbalize there thoughts. The researcher made sure that participants would continue to think out loud.
After completion of all tasks an interview was conducted. Following the interview participants were asked to fill out the System Usability Scale (Brooke, 1986).
We developed a formal protocol which we would use to do our testing.
Brooke, J. (1986). “SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale”. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (eds.). Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
