Design a site like this with
Get started

Group 5 – Project DSU

What would you do?

“What would you do?” is an interactive game for design teams who are designing products for people with CAA and similar dementia symptoms. The game is designed to inform the team about problems they might face further on in the design process, and it will stimulate them to think about how they will tackle different issues or how they would avoid troublesome situations.


Our initial design case was to design a product for a person with CAA. After the first meeting we had with the case owner of this specific case we set up an initial design brief:

“To create a product that would help create value in the case owner’s life.” 

While working with our case owner we encountered several problems which hindered our design process. Because of this, we could not find a concrete design direction without more research, and due to this project’s limited time span, this was not a feasible option. We realized however that we could use our experience combined with the experience of other project groups to design a product that would help future project groups that are going to start a similar project. The design brief we constructed at this point in our progress is as follows:

 “Help students that are designing products for people with CAA setting up the project and prepare the first meeting”. 

We shifted focus to design a product for the design team, since we did not have a case owner to work with. We revised the design goal as it only considered the first meeting with the case owner and in addition, every experience with a case owner will be unique so we wanted our product to help stimulate critical thinking during the project so that they are able to come up with solutions to problems that are specific to their situation. Taking these factors into account we constructed our final design goal.  

Design Challenge

“Stimulate students who are designing a product for a person with CAA to think about, and inform them how to approach the meetings with their case owner”


Because we considered a new design direction our case owners were also changed. The new context that we are designing is for students that will design a product for people with CAA or for people with similar symptoms. To have a more objective view of experiences like ours we wanted to collaborate with another project group that had comparable difficulties. During our meeting we wanted to understand about their process in the project and what went wronghe students are going to use this product as a tool in the beginning of their design process to gain more knowledge about the project, possible problems they might face and give them advice on how to solve or prevent these problems. The information provided will be based on our own experience and the experience of a design team that is currently designing a product for a person with a similar disability. The product will be used by project groups independently.   

Problem mapping

In order to find out what the exact complications are that project groups are facing we reflected on the first fase of the project and conducted a co-design session. Our reflection was a basis for the co-design session. We looked at the timeline of the first phase of our project and looked at what problems we had in this process. In the co-design session we gathered with the other project group, and they were asked to share their thoughts on the project. We were using a printed roadmap of the process, as a reference where the co-designers were writing their experience on sticky notes in the different stages of the project. This was very helpful because we were able to see the problems in a chronological manner and understand clearly what mistakes were made through the way.  

After the session we found out that the group experienced many similar problems as us. A lot of them were related with the communication between the stakeholders and the lack of explanation of the roles that everybody has in the project. This misunderstanding developed frustration between the group and their case owner which led to him giving up on the project. In addition, they did not know immediately how to react in a situation like this which again slowed down the process and the tension in the project grew more. The input that we collected was very beneficial because we were able to see another perspective in order to have a more objective view of the issues we wanted to fix for future students.  


After defining our new design challenge and mapping out the context of our target group, we brainstormed on possible solutions that would solve the problems that we found. First we looked at the different problems and tried to categorize them. This gives a good overview of what problems occur in what circumstances. We came up with 4 different problem catergories: Communication, planning, meeting and mindset.

Furthermore we tried to see what solutions would solve the problems we gathered. We relected on our experiences and see what would have helped us in the beginning of the project.


After ideating we came to the conclusion of developing a card game that will help students to learn what they should expect from the project. The cards have two sides. On one there is a written scenario that asks the person reading it what would they do in that specific situation. Then the person shares his opinion with the others and that starts the discussion. After the discussion is finished the card can be flipped on the other side. There is going to be written advice from us which will help the students to understand how to approach problematic situations. 


The co-design process was obtained with the help of the mentioned project group. We wanted to test our concept with different co-design methods to see how it can be improved so that they want to use our product. During the session, there were three exercises: word association, color association and concept testing.

Word Association

the students were asked to write down words that they associate with this type of learning game. The results were very interesting, and we got an input on what aspects we should concentrate to improve the game. For example, it was said multiple times that the game should be fun and at the same time rewarding to play. The co-designers shared that they usually prefer to play games where they can win because it makes them more motivated to participate. Another remark was that was mentioned often was that when it comes to learning games a lot of the times, they are structured more like exercises rather than games which makes them less enjoyable to play. Regarding learning and having fun at the same time the learning should not feel forced and it should happen naturally while playing the game.

Color Association

Additionally, we made a colour association exercise. The group was given a colour pallet and then asked to associate a colour with the given problem (meeting, communication, planning and mindset). In this way we wanted to make the design of the cards more intuitive for the users.


Final Design

The codesign methods were very beneficial for the improvement of our initial concept. The first version of the card game was not challenging enough and did not provide a lot of fun aspects. This is why the improved version was aiming to include a winning factor which motivates the participants to be more active and willing to play. In addition, new game aspects like a spinning wheel, figures and boards were included which contributes to making the experience more interactive and satisfying. The colors of the cards were also influenced by the co-design methods in order to make them more intuitive to understand and visually attractive.  

Elements of the game


Next Steps

The main objective of the game is to help students prepare for different situations that arise during co-design. For the purposes of the evaluation, usability, enjoyment, and usefulness of the product will be determined.  


Because the product is a learning game, it should be easy to learn to motivate players to play the game. This will be measured by the number of mistakes made playing the game for the first time.  


From the co-design, students expressed the need for the game to be interesting and fun to play. The extent of interest in the game will be measured by the amount of time students play fully invested. Nonverbal behavior will be mostly used for this evaluation aspect. 

Usefulness of the product 

Seeing as this is the main goal of the product, it is important to determine if playing the game at the beginning of the project will make a significant difference in how students approach the project and the number of challenges they face during the project. This aspect can only be tested accurately when phase 1 of the project is complete   

About us



Marijn Krai

Martin Markov

Elna Muchapireyi

Axel Bouwhuis

Francesca Toso

Femke Wonink

Jelle van DijkNiels van Huizen