Research Journal: Postmortem
Now that I'm past the midpoint of this project it's time to conduct a postmortem. This means a critical look at what I've done so far and what direction I should move in, based on the feedback I've received. In doing research about what a postmortem is, I found an interesting piece of insight.
"in the early 1970s, the U.S. Army switched from this talk-at-you approach to a talk-with-you approach called after-action reviews(or AARs). These reviews encourage participation, and occur immediately after each mission"
“What Went Right,”
It's gonna be hard for this section to not be incredibly long. Sorry, can't help it... Ok thats a joke but being the pessimist that I am, this is actually quite difficult. Through my primary research and testing, I found that:
- Yes, there was user interest.
- People like to Explore
- There's nothing wrong with sticking to software you're comfortable with
“What Went Wrong,”
- I did not have the time or technology to prototype an AR interaction
- People were unaware of Geocaching style exploration
- I had not considered how the people within each of these niche groups would react to sharing.
Ultimately, every piece of information helps build the bigger picture and I was able to see with clarity what would and wouldn't work. This experience has solidified my stance on working with a strong, creative team is key to a superior product. I miss Savannah and the network of talented people I could call on for inspiration and the often needed grounding.