<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The paper argues that iterative process is widely accepted\nto be beneficial to design and designer. The authors extend iteration by\nbrining in parallelism and comparing parallel iterative procedure to serialized\niterative procedure. The authors first introduced potential theoretical benefit\nof parallel design, in which they brought about three hypotheses: Parallel prototyping leads to feedback\ncomparison and produces higher quality designs; Parallel prototyping results in\nmore divergent concepts; Parallel prototyping leads to a greater increase in design\ntask-specific self-efficacy<\/em>. The main portion of the paper is dedicated to a\nbetween-subject experiment where the participants are asked to develop web\nadvertisement as produce of iterative design process. The independent variable\nis the structure of such process \u2013 parallel or serial. In short, parallel ads\noutperforms serial ads overall. Not only do they attract more user and receive\nhigher ratings, but also demonstrate more diverse than serial ads. Increased\nself-efficacy from the parallel group is also observed during the experiment.\nTwo follow-up studies are added at the end to: assess potential bias and\nexamine the value of scripted ad critique statements. The paper tries to\nencourage a wide adoption of parallelized iterative approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Involved in some sort of creative design myself, I find this\npaper both scientifically robust and practically impactful. The paper is well\nwritten and clearly organized. I can follow the authors pretty easily and\nwithout much confusion. The study is focused on the topic\/research\nquestions\/answer to hypotheses and not trying to cover too much. The authors\neven have experts developed scripted ad critique statements to ensure equality\nin the feedback each participant and participant group receive during iterations.\nAs for measurement of performances, measured variables have strong connection\nto the hypos. The analysis and discussion are all well documented as well. The\nappendix is informative and increases overall validity of the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iterative design is inevitable. It is not likely that one\ncan come up with a prototype that will meet all requirement perfectly. Based on\nthe feedback, one can make it better. Usually this is serialized process. But\nthis study suggests that providing iterative feedback on more prototypes can\nlead to a better result as well as building better confidence for the designer.\nParallel process might be hard at first for sure, because more prototypes are\nrequired in early stages. But with the same amount of iterations, meaning that\nthe total number of prototypes is created anyway, the initial struggle can be\npaid off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I do like the two short follow-up studies. One answers a\npotential bias of the study, which leaves less room for critics on the validity\nof the work. The second one ensures the pre-scripted critique statements are\nvaluable and reliable enough for the purpose of the study. I hope these two\nstudies are not result of submission rejection J.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I guess my biggest question about the work would be the\nvalidity of divergence measurement through crowdsourcing. Given the number of\nworkers and data size, wouldn\u2019t it be too much for such few people?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Summary The paper argues that iterative process is widely accepted to be beneficial to design and designer. The authors extend iteration by brining in parallelism and comparing parallel iterative procedure to serialized iterative procedure. The authors first introduced potential theoretical benefit of parallel design, in which they brought about three hypotheses: Parallel prototyping leads to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":261,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/261"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions\/140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/ccc2019s\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Reflection<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Question<\/h1>\n\n\n\n