Awesome! I love the looks-like, feels-like, works-like aspects of your model. You definitely touched on many concepts that will propel your team forward. I found a few strange things about your results, and a few things that I am unsure about. First, one of your charts has 11 data points, and the other has 12. You claim that you tested 11 people... where is the extra point coming from? This is minor, and probably didn't affect the overall data, but its a curious artifact. Second, I would have really liked a breakdown of the participants in your model. Was it skewed by age? gender? height? Also, if you place two doors six feet apart (the average error), this means that the room in incredibly narrow for 14 people. It would be more of a corridor, and less of a "room". Also, even though your data suggests that the mean error is 6', the range was anywhere from -3 feet to 18ft (21 ft). I personally think that this range is too large to make the idea work... Are you only going to be able to trick some of the people? For example, lets take the person who was -3 ft off in Fig.2. By placing a fake door six feet from the original place in the positive direction, you are now forcing him or her to believe that where he thought the door was placed is nine feet further down the corridor. Is that believable? I don't know, but you should test this concept of have some other evidence that proves it before your group continues.

return to top of page

I thought you did a great overall job in setting up a test sequence to determine whether users could be fooled by the different door trick. The information on your website was well laid out and clearly conveyed what you did. To reiterate, I thought the setup was very good: user waits in position with eyes closed, user is told to kill squid, etc. The one issue I have is, what happens if a few people in a group suspect they are going through a different door? Maybe it is irrelevant at the time, but they may use it after the fact to try to deconstruct how the gag was created. Although I raise this as a concern I think you can add sounds, excitement and other effects to deceive users completely to give a very effective gag. Also how did users feel after they told you they were back to their starting point? Did they feel confident that they were accurately able to determine where they started? I m just curious. It may lead you to what other distractions in the way of sound, visual effects, etc are needed to help round out the gag.

return to top of page

Your sketch model did a great job proving your concept feasibility. Although, I'm not sure if the results of your video game were particularly relevant. I guess your next step is to decide more elaborate methods of disorientation. Good work.

return to top of page

You tested your idea so creatively! It's great how you masked the purpose of your test by having people play a squid-fighting game. I also think the additional ideas for concept refinement are really great, especially because one of them can eliminate the need to rearrange any panels. The way you presented your data is really clear and thorough; it also makes me think that your ideas are very feasible. The only concern I had while reading your ideas has to do with where the doors are placed relative to their rooms; the doors should be placed in the same position relative to their respective rooms, so this constrains how far apart they can be placed (i.e., if they're placed close together, then the rooms must be really narrow so that the doors are placed in the center of the rooms). Great job!

return to top of page