Week 3 in class exersice

Video Critique on week 3

    1.    Brisbane Parkfinder [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak3sKs-LVc]

First impression: 3/10

Concept: assist people to find the park

Raised questions: a) did not let the audience know what the problem is; b) use unfamiliar words in the video without explaining;

What do they do well: a) prototype is fairly good;  b) showed the context of using the app;

Video content: a) more visual assistance should be used; b) microphones should be wired to the announcer to get the voice clearer;

Overall, this video kind of explains the design concept, but the lack of visual assistance and poor voice editing made the delivery of concept unclear to the audience. The long shot taken on the main speaker is too long, which made the video content pretty boring to watch. The presentation of prototype is fairly good, however more interaction feature could be presented to the audience that indicates how the app actually works. 

    2.    Plain English Google Docs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muVUA-sKcc4#t=22]

First impression: 9/10

Concept: share an online version of docs that allows other people to use it

Question: a) did not show the significance of the problem; 

Should do better: a) points out the problem that raises more consensus; b) create context; c)

Have done well: a) using paper prototype to replace the animation; 

Video content: a) clear use of paper prototyping; b) clear audio (a bit fast); c) the visual content is based on what the speaker says

This is a very good pitch video of presenting the product. Let alone that Google Doc has be universally used by people today, as this first came out in 2007, this video gave a clear presentation of how the product would improve the user experience of sending and sharing a certain file. Although the problem statement in the beginning of this video did not make the problem appear to be a significant one, the statement of what G Doc could change is clear and straightforward. Audience would find resonance of the context the video created and got interests in what G Doc could do. 

* Simple method of presenting the idea (paper prototype in this case) could make it easier for audience to understand sometimes. Even for a huge company like Google would use this cheap and simple way to deliver their ideas, which also works perfectly. 

    3.    Pegasus [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/excelsiorgames/pegasus-the-next-generation-of-chess-0]

First impression: 0/10

Concept: cannot tell the game concept by the ideas

Question: What is this game? How does it work? Why is it fun to play? 

Should do better: …a lot

Have done well: music? (music can be distracting to the video content)

No explanation, no caption, only with music and animated steps of playing the game, all these elements made this pitch video a pretty bad example of what should not do to make a video for pitching your idea. It is important to allure the interest of audience while pitching a game. What the designer clearly understood would not be that easy to be understood by the audience, without any explanation, even though there are many explanation in the text followed by this video. However, if the video did not make audience be interested to the content, they would not bother reading the content followed. 

* Make the video content fun to watch and self-explainable. 

Best example:

Formlab 3D printer [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer]