Sloppy Forgeries Case Study

Overview

Sloppy Forgeries promotional video

This project of ours aims to design Sloppy Forgeries for a museum context. The DePaul Art Museum in Chicago has an upcoming exhibition that will leverage their permanent collection. Designing Sloppy Forgeries for the DePaul Art Museum using their permanent collection is what we have done. Adding needed features and recomendations has left us with an interactive prototype specifically created for the DePaul Art Museum and a hope for implementation next year.

Roles & Responsibilities

My group had four members and each of us took on different roles and handled different responsibilities. At the start of the project all of us had similar roles:

  • Researching various design considerations and inspiration
  • Interviewing stakeholders
  • Brainstorming ideas
  • Creating mockups
  • Considering physical and immaterial limitations
  • Presenting ideas to decision making stakeholders

Towards the end of the project my roles and responsibilities shifted to more technical aspects:

  • Designing elements for Figma prototypes
  • Using previously created frames in Figma to create interactive prototypes
  • Testing prototypes by facilitating interviews with potential users/audiences
  • Integrating feedback received from users, colleagues and experienced professionals
  • Communication with team members to justify independent decisions and changes to project assets

Partners and Stake Holders

  • DePaul Students
  • Local Community Members
  • DePaul Faculty

Problem Statement

In Fall 2023, DPAM will launch an academic-year-long exhibition for The Learning Studio. The Learning Studio is the first museum education program of its kind in Chicago to combine object-based learning techniques with intergenerational and interdisciplinary programming rooted in community care and art therapy techniques. The exhibition, featuring artworks from DPAM’s collection and collaborations with artists and other museums from across our city, will transform over the duration of its run to incorporate feedback from dialogues with teaching artists, community healers, and students–with audiences becoming the curatorial voice for the exhibition.

Artworks in the collection range from works on paper, painting, sculpture, and textiles in various themes, by artists of African and Latinx diaspora, Asian, Arab, Native American, and LGBTQ+ self-identities. With staff and audiences learning together and connecting with artworks that reflect the concerns of our city, there is intent to explore what is needed in today’s classrooms, how creating together can be a form of care, and how civic pride and responsibility can inform our creative practices.

Through these community sessions, DPAM will engage art teachers, artists, students, and community leaders who live in some of the city’s most neglected neighborhoods to provide them with a platform to voice their hopes and concerns while exploring the permanent collection. In this way, visitor-curators might not only see themselves reflected in the artists and artworks represented, but may be directly empowered to influence the cultural discourse of our institution.


The DePaul Art Museum is very interested to work with the class (UXD 394/395) to create some kind of game or virtual component to the project that could help better introduce the permanent collection to wide audiences who may not be able to physically visit the space – or who may want to engage with it differently while in the space.


Users and Audience

Referencing our stakeholders we selected three potential audiences to design Sloppy Forgeries around.

  • Local Community Members and Families
  • DePaul Faculty
  • DePaul Students

These three audiences were chosen because they are the closest and most frequent visitors to the DePaul Art Museum. The art museum is free entry and because Sloppy Forgeries is only going to be used as an event choosing audiences came down to who would benefit the most from playing the game and experience. Other audiences were certainly considered throughout the project but whenever brainstorming ideas we would use these three as a starting point.

Scope

The project scope was designing an already existing game for museum context. At the start of the project no idea was too small nor concept too big to be considered but after our initial research stage, we found some limitations that affected the scope of the project. Communicating with our partners and asking questions led us to the constraints below.

  • Budget
    • DPAM had no budget to spare
    • Potential for video game grant introduced by Professor Tran
  • Physical space
    • DPAM has limited space available in their exhibition rooms
    • Flex space with installed projector and working PC
    • Game will only be available at certain times
eventspace.
Testing Sloppy Forgeries in DPAM’s event space
  • Hardware requirements
    • Sloppy Forgeries only works on Windows devices as of this time
    • No future plans for other platforms regarding Sloppy Forgeries for a museum context
    • Game can not be left running all the time
  • Project timeline
    • Project start winter 2023
    • Around 10 weeks for initial brainstorming, ideation and stakeholder interviews
    • Around 10 weeks for designing and testing
    • Design stage end summer 2023
    • Game development beginning in winter 2024 due to developer timetable
project_timeline.
Sloppy Forgeries project timeline

Design & Testing Process

Sloppy Forgeries already existed as a game before my group decided to work on designing it for a museum context. With the help and input of the original developer, Jonah Warren, we discussed potential concepts, revised existing notions and introduced new ideas. This design process involved many revisions, a large amount of feedback and plenty of user testing. After each round of user testing we applied the feedback we received to the project, this circular design process allowed us to continue revising Sloppy Forgeries to better reflect our initial goal, to design the game for a museum context.


  • Design
    • Brainstorm new ideas
    • Narrow down ideas based on restrictions
    • Implement ideas into project
    • Conduct user testing/receive feedback from experienced professionals
    • Discuss feedback with group and developer
    • Start the process over again

  • Testing
    • Update interactive prototype or create user testing materials
    • Decide tasks for users to complete
    • Find users to interview
    • Conduct interview test allowing users to talk through what they are doing
    • Take notes and ask questions when users run into roadblocks or give feedback
    • Condense notes and discuss potential solutions to problems
    • Continue the design process and implement any changes
    • Repeat process when necessary

We chose this design and testing process because we had ten weeks to work on designing an already existing game for museum context. Using the agile design process made the most sense because we were able to communicate and present our revisions to the developer and hear his feedback. Taking small steps at a time allowed us to narrow our objectives and focus on what was most important to the game and the considerations from the developer regarding implementation.

Outcomes

Reflection and Next Steps

Next Steps

  • Development in winter/spring 2024 by Jonah Warren
  • Implementation by DPAM in spring/summer 2024

Reflection

I have learned a lot over the course of this project and will use what I have learned in future projects as well. Initially my group had a different idea in mind for this project, which was a community created art gallery, but because of budget and physical limitations we pivoted towards Sloppy Forgeries. I had great ambitions for the project along with my groupmates but reality was not so kind. We had intended for Sloppy Forgeries to be a permanent exhibit in the museum and have one more game mode called chaos. It added items to the game that would allow one player to sabotage the other player. All of these ideas were excluded from the game quite early on. It’s a lesson I learned that out of the many ideas that are pitched most of them will not be included in the end result. Narrowing down ideas is going to inevitably happen in any project but brainstorming more ideas is still better than only a few. More ideas allows for more options and having more options allows the project to be flexible when the direction the project is going in stops at a dead end. Finally one last thing I learned and what I thnk is the most important, is getting feedback on every step of the project. Experiences aren’t made for one person, they are made for many, so getting feedback from many people just means that more people will have a great experience.