Jai Moore is a writer, student and pasta enthusiast living in Melbourne.

Jai's Design Journal

Visual and Interactive Design journal completed during Semester 1, 2017 at Victoria University.

Week 2 Journal (10th March - 16th March)


Introduced to the concept of Lean UX and replacing the brief with a Statement of Purpose (could be as short as 2-3 sentences) for the design. Found the process diagram included in the resources particularly useful, as it broke down the process into five steps: Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. This week will finish the 'define' phase of the project and include at least one way of testing the design.


The theoretical backdrop this week provided was deeply relieving. I was confused by and suspicious of the workshop persona exercise; I have previously used research to build personas, and doing it "the wrong way around" didn't immediately make sense to me.


Design as Politics resolved concerns over whether the subject matter was too political for an assessment piece.

Watched a 2014 talk on Lean UX by Jeff Gothelf in preparation for a dive into the text of the Lean UX text. In the talk, Gothelf presents a remarkably similar process model to the unit resource. Here is the Stanford model and Gothelf's model side-by-side (click to enlarge):


I plan to refer back to both of these frequently throughout the project.


Joris Dormans' Machinations tool was included in a slide deck sent to me by the unit co-ordinator. It has not been immediately self-explanatory. I intend to set aside 30 minutes to work it out on Friday, and if I don't get any major insights, will go back to the deck and try another tool.


Reviewed my notes from the consultation and wrote the following statement(s) of purpose. The following is based on Lean UX pp. 17-24, where it is described as a hypothesis statement.

Part 1: Problem Statement

+ We provide advocacy and social support to LGBTI students across the university. We have observed that the bathrooms on Victoria University campuses are not meeting the needs of LGBTI students, which is causing distress and risks violent outcomes. How might we improve the campus bathrooms so that they are more useful and inclusive based on student feedback?

Part 2: Hypothesis Statement

+ We believe that creating visual social objects supported by a direct action campaign for uninitiated students will achieve increased desire for change. We will know this is true when we see the unimpeded implementation of all-gender bathroom facilities across all campuses.

A note on personas and testing:

During brainstorming activities, I have been using the following scale to define our target audience for the campaign. It chunks ideological positions into five main attitude statements, on a spectrum from most aligned with the purpose of the campaign to least aligned. The following has been verbalised in simpler forms throughout consultation, but has been written out for the first time here.

1.    Ones are the beneficiaries and implementers of the campaign. They are engaged with the issue and capable of explaining it to others. They may benefit directly or indirectly from the success of the campaign. This group includes transgender and queer students and staff, and those in close personal relationships with them.

'I/My partner need(s) all-gender bathrooms to feel safe in a lot of public places.'

2.    Twos are dormant supporters. They may understand all-gender bathroom facilities conceptually, but are not engaged with changemaking in the area. They are never personally impacted by the issue and may struggle to explain it clearly. This group includes heterosexual but queer-allied students, some queer students and staff (particularly gay men and lesbians), and some welfare staff.

'I'm comfortable using an all-gender bathroom. It's no big deal, right?'

3.    Threes are undecided on the issue as a whole. They may reflect views based in mainstream media coverage, and have rarely or never engaged with the issue directly. They are likely to have never used an all-gender bathroom, as they are still uncommon.

'I'm not sure these bathrooms are safe, and I probably wouldn't feel good using one.'

4.    Fours are opposed to all-gender bathrooms. They consistently argue from a position of risk and appeal to force. Unlike fives, however, they are not motivated enough to go out into the world and throw down based on their beliefs. They are likely to avoid using an all-gender bathroom facility and ask others to do the same, especially women.

'I don't think it's right to have a bathroom that just anyone can go in. What if there's some creep in there?'

5.    Fives are extremely opposed to all-gender bathrooms, and usually by extension, transgender people. They are the authors and consumers of advertisements and comics depicting men bursting into women's bathrooms, and a major source of conceived anxiety about the risks surrounding this issue. Fives are common on the far right of the political spectrum (Australian Christian Lobby) but not restricted to it (Germaine Greer).

'Men who think they are women shouldn't be allowed in women's bathrooms -- it's dangerous for our girls!'

The main target persona for this campaign are Twos, with a secondary focus on bringing Threes into the conversation.

Here is an illustration of how currently engaged with the issue (positive or negative) each group is assumed to be based on their stance.




The simplest test I have come up with for the first iteration of this campaign is to determine where on the above spectrum individuals in my class fall, and record their reactions to the campaign (testing the assumption of increased desire for change). This could be done during the portfolio presentation or before.

Next week, I plan to explore further methods of testing the assumptions laid out above and their outcomes.

[927 words]

Jai Moore