Watch Listen Learn™ is a conversation-driving card game my teammate and I developed using service design methods. We chose to address the problem of how controversial conversations can be made fun and productive, where even diametrically disagreeing individuals can walk away feeling both informed and respected. This game aims to create an environment where people can voice opinions on a fair playing field and back up their arguments with reliable, fact-checked sources.
This project was completed for a masters-level service design elective, so I was lucky to be able to work with a postgraduate student with experience and insights that complemented my own. Because we focused on learning how to use service design methods, we spent most of the semester identifying the user needs and understanding the system. During the course, we shared our findings through various presentation methods. At the end, we combined both business and UX thinking to round out our final service proposition: WLL™.
In this course, we were given full freedom to choose whatever topic we wanted to design for. My teammate and I were initially interested in political discourse because of the concern around fake news in recent years and expansion of platforms used by politicians to connect with their audiences. Eventually, we decided that addressing this problem through regular interpersonal relationships was what we were more excited about. This led to the final design focus being on civil rather than political discourse. Our goal was to design a service that makes uncomfortable conversations more desirable and productive, especially wanting to promote rather than avoid topics that get more heated.
The ecosystem map we created was generally focused on the creation and movement of news and information. This gave an overarching view of where ideas and opinions may originate and where facts and sound reasoning could be sourced. Our original map detailed how content creators generate information that is dispersed by content suppliers like news agencies to sometimes be evaluated by external evaluators and be consumed by conversationalists and primary users like millennials and baby boomers.
.png)
For presentation purposes, we simplified this map a lot, which allowed our audience to focus more on what the key takeaways were. What we noticed was a gap in successful communication between content consumers, as shown with the dotted line arrows. We realized that discourse experiences might be a more impactful design opportunity than content-based experiences.
.png)
In the current media market, suppliers can make their content accessible to all types of consumers no matter their beliefs, age, gender, location. or tech savviness. Algorithms in social media, mainstream news outlets, and word of mouth present consumers with information with different levels of personalization. Creators work directly with suppliers when making content and evaluators more passively evaluate content after its dispersal.
However, discourse between consumers is not nearly as rigid or systematic. Civil discourse can often be non-existent or of low quality, especially if the individuals involved are of opposing views and avoidant of stoking argumentative conversations. Focusing on designing more structure to guide conversations seemed like a great design opportunity. Plus, we had plenty of people to interview and test with because everyone consumes content in one way or another and is likely to want to share their thoughts.
Our market trend research consisted of finding articles and prior studies about the current state of media creation and consumption. We found articles that backed our pivoted focus and explained how tech platforms were fueling political polarization in the US. Of the resources found, two scholarly articles stood out in their conclusions. One covered algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter while the other explored an AI blockchain platform for fact-checking news. From the articles, the team distilled four main insights important to this project:
Anger-driven, no-compromise attitude of politicians and news outlets is repeated by individuals on social media and directly contributes to partisan animosity. Furthermore, because content algorithms have learned that people like to see content that they agree with, “echo chambers” that continuously validate extreme beliefs further make reason-based and calm discourse hard to facilitate. The graphs below were provided in the Twitter study and illustrate our aforementioned insights.
Our goal now was to create a system that could break down echo chambers and facilitate safe, open, and fact-based conversations. To get some ideas on how to go about this and how people currently hold these conversations with the people they care about, we sought out some politically-outspoken peers to interview.
“People who are exposed to content or ideas that are of their opposite beliefs are more likely to have fruitful conversations with a person from an opposing standing.”
We believed that exposure to only content you agree with and that dismisses the other side is a core reason for unproductive discourse. To validate this thought, the team looked into market trends and secondary research around how controversial topics are presented and spoken about.
My teammate and I each recruited 2 interviewees, trying to get insights from people of various ages, professions, and political beliefs. We tried to find people who would be more likely to engage in controversial conversations in order to learn how they learn about these controversies and what makes their conversations feel productive.
Each interview included 19 open-ended questions including but not limited to:
We noted interviewee responses directly in Figjam and extracted insights from key points they made. We then put these insights into empathy maps, which helped us extrapolate pain and gain points for the users. We made three empathy maps because we realized that our findings frames the problem from the view points of three different personas: the promoter, the on-looker, and the convert. These directly informed the personas we created later.
Key learnings that the interviewees expressed included that...
The interviews informed our personas, which we built in Theydo.io. Because the delivery method of our service had yet to be determined, I was focusing on the needs and jobs to do more heavily for these personas, hoping that they would lead to some ideas for delivery methods.
The personas helped us clearly delineate and communicate the problem space we wanted to attack and the user group we would target. With this information, we moved on to flesh out the business strategy and familiarize ourselves with the business model canvas by analyzing a related product in this problem space.
Considering the hypothesis mentioned earlier about fruitful conversations arising from opposite beliefs, we wanted to look into what tools are available to users currently. Allsides.com stood out as a resource where users could check the level of bias of different news sources and look for how the opposing side presents the same information. They are a non-profit that provides information services through their website and programs:
This approach to providing balanced news and diverse perspectives aids in their mission to “Free people from filter bubbles so they can better understand the world — and each other.” Working in Mural (and beautifying in Figma), we filled our a business model canvas as seen below to better understand how Allsides operates and delivers its value proposition.
Upon further evaluation of the BMC, especially the connections between sections, the team noticed two key opportunities areas for innovation.
This all being said, presenting all the sides is just one step towards fostering productive civil discourse. The team’s solution would also differentiate itself by focusing on the next step in the journey: the communication skills and habits that are required for rewarding controversial debates.
With the personas defined, we mapped a current state journey for each of them using Theydo. The journeys consisted of 6 steps from consuming content to sharing and discussing about it. For presentation purposes, much like with many other artifacts in this project, we simplified the journey map to emphasize our main findings.
We identified two key insights: reactions to content and reactions to discussion can wildly differ. The goal of the service was then geared towards promoting a positive reaction at both those points of the journey. This new focus was a main contributor to the design criteria we set for the project.
Based on the insights from the aforementioned user research and market analysis, we created a set requirements for the service design. Each requirement was put in a category based on how important it is for establishing our value proposition. Must haves are core to creating a functioning system, should haves are key value-providing features, could-haves could possibly add more value, and could do withouts are just icing on the cake. These requirements guided our ideation sessions and were used to flesh out the final service design concept.
Based on the criteria above and our now more comprehensive understanding of the problem we want to solve, we crafted a short and sweet opportunity statement. Any concepts we develop in the next stage must address this opportunity. Plus, having this cohesive statement made sharing our project with stakeholders and users more comprehendible and memorable.
With the opportunity defined, we started to brainstorm ideas for the service. To be able to brainstorm more varied and interesting solutions, the 10 Types of Innovation framework was employed—forcing the team to think about the innovation potential for the configuration, offerings, and experience of the service. We talked the through 11 different ideas with two potential users during a spontaneous co-design session. With two extra perspectives, we were able to discuss which options were more likely to be adopted and meet our design criteria.
Together, we decided to create a conversation-prompting card game with a supplemental website with resources. The aspects of this service are highlighted in the above image in orange. A game seemed like the perfect solution for a few reasons:
During a second ideation session, the service concept was further expanded using the 10 Types of Innovation. By reading through the innovation categories, we brainstormed additional features to strengthen the service’s value proposition. Of the 10, we found the most opportunities within configuration, offering, and experience. A few examples include:
For the last part of ideation, team then went through the established requirements to make sure all the bases were covered. The outlined boxes in the image below describe how the proposed system design satisfies the requirements.
With the service design concept decided and design requirements satisfied, we wanted to use a future state user journey to piece together the features we had conceptualized. The following journey map showcases the ideal state for the service.
This journey map was also helpful in identifying additional opportunities for design over the course of the entire user interaction—not just while the user is playing the game. It also helped us envision how to connect the physical card game with the digital website and how to make those switch-points more seamless.
Our final system was a conversation card game called Watch Listen Learn™. Below are some of the pieces of our proposed system and how they meet they play a part in facilitating more productive civil discourse.
Watch Listen Learn™ was chosen as the name of the game to stress three key parts of modern day discourse that are lacking. Our mission is to guide people in watching to connect, listening to trust, and learning to engage. Because the brand should feel welcoming and accepting, bright colors and rounded edges are used. The typography consists of fun and casual sans serif fonts. SetoFont is also used for the iconography— faces made of different letters and symbols, giving a playful and welcoming visual.
The brand contains many symbolic colors and design elements. Orange is the primary brand color, representing enthusiasm, creativity, expression, and fascination. The secondary colors are representative of mixing opinions and experiences since secondary colors are a mix of two primary colors. The reflections in the logo match the reflective nature of the game and the eye within it alludes to the introspective part. The grainy texture of the cards symbolize the messy and uncertain nature of the discourse topics.
Each deck contains a few different types of cards: prompt cards, special cards, reflect cards, and blank write-your-own cards.
Prompt cards instruct which topic to discuss. These cards have a few characteristics:
Each game also includes Write-Your-Own cards allow players to add prompts that matter to them and that they want to discuss with the group.
There are also a few special cards in the game used to encourage social equity and promote learning. The Spotlight, Shush, and Ditto cards are clear because they signify silent requests that can be laid down without interrupting the flow of conversation or the current person speaking.
Of course, an instruction booklet is included in the game box. The instructions go through the gameplay, card types and uses, and provide additional ways to play. A QR code that leads to the resources portion of the website is also included to make it easier to find out more about any of the topics covered by the cards. Finally, a parting message prompts people to get in touch with the creation team and post about the game on social media.
The website serves three main functions: marketing, selling, and providing information. It would be accessible on a variety of devices and especially optimized for mobile since the resources might be good to refer to during the game.
This online resource database makes it easy to stay informed about topics and learn about any new topics the player might be unfamiliar with. The online site would share some characteristics with Allsides and link to different articles, books, and videos while being transparent about their potential biases. The topics on the cards match the tags on the website and make it easy for the player to learn more in an unbiased, factual manner.
To market and gather interest in the game, the website can also act as an informational and interactive walkthrough of what the game is and what it provides the user. We imagined a future state for the website where people can play a lite version of the game—maybe even having a prompt of the day feature!
Watch Listen Learn™ would have a business to consumer model that sells a core product and then expansion packs on top of that. Expansion packs bring a customizability to the game, offering players with niche interests more ways to practice their civil discourse skills. The expansion packs range from topics like history and movies, all the way to more critical topics like immigration and gun control. They can even have annual or bi-annual releases to include the hottest topics of conversation. Players can switch things up based on topics they’re passionate about or methods of playing they desire. The products can also be gifted to friends, family, and coworkers in order to encourage even more open and frequent civil discourse.
Validation testing was performed with 3 potential users and consisted of a co-discovery learning session and a retrospective interview. The users were all design students aged between 24 and 25 and included people of varying levels of political involvement. One user was a foreign student who was raised in a country with very different political ideologies while the other students were American and Hispanic-American.
The co-discovery session had players review the service components, read the instructions, and actually play the game with some sample cards and prompts. This lasted for about an hour. The facilitator took notes on the users’ non-verbal and verbal reactions before, during, and after the game play. The retrospective interview asked them about whether they understood the gameplay, the different cards, whether they would play again, and whether they found the game aesthetically pleasing.
Overall, the feedback was positive and we saw a lot of the characteristics of productive discourse exemplified in the players’ responses:
The testing confirmed a lot of the impact and potential benefits to players of the game:
Areas of potential improvement identified by the user testing include:
This project was only 16 weeks and thus left a lot to be explored. Some possible future steps we identified are:
Almost every week, we were presenting our project to the class and getting feedback from classmates as well as guidance from our professor. The final deliverables included:
Our project was very well received and our professor chose it as one of the top two projects in the course to display at the end-of-semester design showcase event.
Taking this Master’s level elective during my undergraduate degree was an awesome experience. Not only did I get to work with an amazingly talented teammate with a different background than I had, I also learned a lot throughout this project:
I feel I learned a lot of communication and design thinking skills in this course that are very applicable to my future career. I’m also grateful to have become great friends with my teammate and to have completed such a rigorous and interesting project in just a few months!
