The scores from each crit were visualised as radar charts. This suited the small sample size (two groups) and helped to show multiple dimensions of the coding scheme at once (Vimal, 2025). Radar charts also helpfully show shifts in dimensions; the goal was not to maximise all dimensions, but to cover them holistically throughout the course.
Crit #1
The first crit’s focus was to present initial ideas. Previous experience was frequently mentioned: both groups mentioned technologies (e.g., B3: “inspired by Snapchat, Instagram and Google”), readings (e.g., A3: “inspired by the book Design Justice”), and previous projects (e.g., A3: “inspired from last year, we had a project called…”). There was some mention of group dynamics (A2: “similar to all of our ideas”) and Group A gave some mention of characteristics (A1: “[users can] compare… to their own regional influences”), however, did not enact this clearly.
At this stage, the positionality chart was updated to separate mentions of lived experience and inspirations. More fidelity was added to the scoring also to distinguish between passing and clear mentions, shown below.
Crit #2
This crit’s focus was on bringing the previous ideas together. Inspirations were still prominently mentioned. There was a small increase in emotion (A5: “after I play games they feel like…”) and some mention of assumptions (B3: “I thought that the idea of a journal would…”, A5: “I feel like your personality”); however, these were not used to shape designs.
Intervention
Overall, there was a clear lack of reflection on power, characteristics and emotions throughout. For the next crit, I prompted students with template slides to prompt reflection on power and characteristics (Figure 4).
Crit #3
This crit’s focus was to advance the design and to focus on points in the intervention. There was a clear shift to the right-hand side of the radar chart. Both groups made clear mention of characteristics leading to changes in design: A1 noted that “not everything [on TikTok] is a direct response to our intersectionality”; B2 highlighted the need to accommodate “both age and ability”. Power also increased. A1 recognised “input from elders might not be as vast”. B2 mentioned power differences for “the visually impaired, elderly,” though did not connect this to design changes.
Crit #4
This crit’s focus was to summarise and explain the final design. This gave opportunity for me to observe, unprompted, what aspects students leant on from the positionality chart.
Characteristics remained prominent and inspirations reappeared. Both groups mentioned characteristics; however, Group B did not enact these into their design, only noting that “there will… be excluded users” (B5). That said, Group B did continue to develop their thinking on power, noting economic factors (B3: “Except from the part on how wealthy they are… [our] design is quite expensive”).
Closing reflections on these findings are found in the presentation slides (blog post link).
References
Vimal, S. (2025) ‘Radar Chart: Unleashing the Power of Comparative Data Visualization’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33000.94728.