Me-Power
Me-Power is a concept of a remote control that does not require and batteries or charging stations.
This project focuses on attempting to understand user needs, translate these needs to requirements and these requirements to potential concepts. The goal is to understand the user centric approach that is central to design.
The problem statement at hand is to redesign a TV remote. With the use of multiple need assessment techniques, this is refined and a new remote concept is developed.
User Need Assessment
Need assessment can be done in a myriad of ways but the ones that I chose were the questionnaire and interviews. I sent out a questionnaire in order to collect a wide spectrum of data. Using this data, I narrowed down a target group and a problem space and conducted in depth interviews with 6 potential users. This gave me deeper insights into the problems that persist and helped me understand the real areas of difficulty for the users.
Questionnaire
We can see that a large portion of people have issues with the remote being unresponsive. Some people find that they need to replace the battery too often. These have been highlighted in a darker colour on the chart. These are the problem areas that I will be focusing on.
A lot of people find that their remote controls are unresponsive but when asked how often they change out the batteries, most reply ‘almost never’. This could be a potential cause for the unresponsiveness.
Interviews
From the questionnaire I identified my target space as remote issues due to unresponsiveness and the need to change batteries. I found that many participants stated that their remotes were unresponsive but also they did not change the batteries often.
6 interviews were conducted with participants who faces issues of this nature. They were around 20-30 mins in length. I worked mainly with users of a younger target group and mainly users that used smart TVs. I asked them about their remote control usage and more in depth about the frustrations they face with the batteries or unresponsiveness.
Primary Insights
These are some of the takeaways that I had after I finished all 6 interviews. They sum up a large portion of the knowledge I gathered and helped me choose a clear direction.
Changing batteries is a cumbersome task
Unresponsive remotes largely affect the TV watching experience
Users wants to move away from the reliance on batteries
Users want more modern and intuitive modes of interaction such as touch screen, gestures, voice commands or minimal buttons
Users would like to have a predetermined place to keep the remote
Users would like to have a method for easily typing in passwords and other text
Users prefer a sleek and modern design and are a little tired of the pre-existing black box remotes
Pain Points
Unresponsiveness in IR remotes are largely caused due to two reasons.
Draining of batteries
Dirt and grease accumulation on the PCB of the remote
So I decided that my problem statement would aim to address these main factors.
I tried to map out the experience that a user might have with an unresponsive remote based on all the interviews that I conducted. I learnt from my studies that users are quite frustrated when their remotes don’t work and sometimes do not want to watch TV anymore. They rarely have spare batteries since not too many of their devices even need batteries anymore.
Program of Criteria
“To design a modern TV remote that is responsive at all times and does not fail suddenly.”
Specifications
Should be IR based
Should be a physical device
Demands
Should never suddenly fail
Should be responsive
Should be easy to hold and ergonomic
Should have a sleek modern design
Should have basic controls like menu navigation, volume control, power control
Wishes
Maybe have a specific place to be kept
Maybe be easier to control
Less reliant on buttons
Maybe be easier to type in characters
Maybe be a different colour
Maybe have a method of locating when lost
Maybe be easier to navigate through menus and videos
Concept Generation
I came up with ideas initially by brainstorming. Later after I learnt about specific brainstorming techniques, I used a morphological chart. Here I came up with a few functions of relevance to my users and had a few options for each of those functions. I then eliminated possible options that did not satisfy the requirements I envisioned. Using the morphological chart and further ideation, I produced three main concepts.
I focused on primarily designing for the younger target group that used smart TVs and used their TVs for streaming.
Morphological chart
A morphological chart is a visual way to capture the necessary product functionality and explore alternative means and combinations of achieving that functionality.
I started off by making a morphological chart. This is a smaller scale one to slowly help me rule out options. After making all the possibilities, I came to the conclusion that I did not want to have a remote charged by a cable or a remote that did not bring to the user’s attention that the battery was low.
I similarly ruled out more options and we can see the complete morphology chart in the following page. There are more options and more functions. The options that have been considered are highlighted.
Based on the morphology chart that I created, I came up with ideas that combined the functions highlighted. Some options could only be combined with certain others because of the nature of their designs.
Concept Selection
I had three concepts with me and had to pick one to go ahead with. For this, I employed the Harris profile technique. I created a Harris profile and performed a visual sum to identify the preferred concepts. In addition to using the Harris profile, I also asked users for their feedback and for them to rank the concepts in their order of preference. I used insights from the user feedback sessions and the Harris profile to choose one concept.
Reflection
Based on the Harris profile, concept 1 is in the lead followed closely by concept 3.
Concept 1 has very little colouring on the left side and indicates more positives and few negatives.
Concept 3 also has a lot of colouring on the right side but also some on the left.
Concept 2 does not have much colouring indicating that it is a neutral option and not overwhelmingly positive or negative.
Users however had different opinions.
Two out of three users that I got feedback rated concept 3 the highest.
They mentioned that the stress ball was exciting to them and even useful. They mentioned that they were used to fidgeting with something while watching TV and would like to play with their remote while watching TV.
They said they even prioritise sustainability and this was something new and that this is a remote that they would likely buy and enjoy.
Based on all these insights and a combination with the Harris profile, I elected to go ahead with concept 3. It seemed most preferred by the users and fared well in the Harris profile as well.
A small palm sized remote control that can be charged by squeezing it like a stress ball. The power button works as a backup source of power. The user can hold the remote, fidget with it and relieve their stress from their day while watching TV. There is an LED present on the top. Pressing it will let the user know about the level of charge present on the remote. Users no longer have to worry about finding a battery or about their remote controls not working.
User Testing
I collected user feedback from my user base on my prototype. I asked them about the comfort and the level to which it addressed their problem. It was well received and users seemed to like the product and thought it would be convenient from a usability standpoint.