The Outcome

The outcome didn't completely support the original conceit, however, as the idea rapidly began changing.  Our original conceit involved the act of physically punching a medium (i.e. a punching bag) and taking that data for use in shaping a mesh.  Without the physical punching object, the system leaves the user with more of an open canvas.  With a simple line of tape on the floor to represent the boundary with the mesh, the user was forced to imagine the mesh for themselves.  This allows the user more freedom, but doesn't provide nearly as much feedback as we originally intended it to have.  When using the design system, it is obvious that lack of feedback to the user promotes a more uncontrolled environment, something that may or may not be desired when designing a 3D model.

When using the system, we noticed that users take different approaches to how they interact with the modeling environment.  With limited verbal prompts, some users begin by reaching out and touching the mesh to learn the boundaries of the system.  Others, simply begin punching straight away.  A specific user in particular remarked that she would prefer deforming the mesh with her entire body, rather than with her hands.  For example, she imagined that she could be able to deform the mesh simply by walking into it.

Moving Forward

Taking into account the feedback received as well as our original design conceits, it is clear that we need to incorporate some form of physical feedback to the user.  Providing the user with a physical boundary helps improve the user's mental model.  On the other hand, this would also limit the scope and possibilities for a user, which may or may not be a good thing.  Limiting our scope will allow us to create an easier workflow from beginning with a flat mesh to a fabricated object, however, in the spirit of creating a versatile design system, choices for the user are an important consideration.