🔎 The problem space…

The rental crisis in Australia has been a subject of rising concern in recent years. This is becoming increasingly relevant in an economy facing the onset of inflation, interest rate rises, and a housing affordability crisis (Touma, 2023).

Set out by Goals 10 and 11 of the UN Sustainable Development goals, we standby in creating sustainable cities by ensuring ‘equal opportunities’ (SDG target 10.3) and eliminating discriminatory practices (SDG Indicator 10.3.1)

Specifically, we aim to explore this in the context of Sydney’s current rental market.

This report outlines the methods we undertook to saturate our understanding of the problem space. Informed by our research, we will then present a potential spatial and digital product that is guided by the framework of the SDG goals.

Click here to view our concept proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17nuw5aLoIthphNNu6t5dAK0zIfgZcrcJ/view?usp=sharing.

This proposal highlights all the themes we uncovered and our primary and secondary research plan.

Following our rigorous secondary research, we conducted primary research following our plan below. In addition to method triangulation we used data source triangulation by collecting data from not only renters but also real estate agents and landlords thus preventing sampling biases and gaining more rounded insights on the rental crisis.

Below are a few artefacts from our user reseach.

🕵️ User research results:

Our approach to research analysis.

Using affinity diagramming and personas we combined the insights of the questionnaire and focus group. Followed by empathy mapping, persona creation and reframing. (All artefacts available at end of page). To further visualise all the information we had collated, we created a service blueprint located here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T7YhKMYg-UsSYsRlEY0FXgsyrVKI_rCo/view

The Final Themes we had focused on:

🧩 Reframing

The combined insights from primary and and secondary research provided a clear direction for our new problem statement. Through iterating with the 5 why’s method, we were able to drill down to determine the underlying factors providing a holistic view of the problem.

💡 Our new problem statement

How might we redistribute power between all parties involved in the rental process to create a fairer and transparent application process, eliminating instances of rental discrimination, ensure that all applicants are aware of the rights, provided with application status and supported throughout this process ?

💭 Concept Ideation

A combination of ideating tools like crazy 8’s (see appendix 5) and co-design methods helped to welcome any potential concepts. Assessing these concepts against a criteria further ensured our ideas were relevant to the thematic issues surrounding Sydney’s current rental market and responded to specific pain points highlighted in the service blueprint. Lastly, the team landed on three concepts through a collaborative process of elimination, where those concepts will be developed further.

What?

• Co-design Activity: “What headlines would you like to see as a tenant?”,

• Interviews: Speculative questions during interviews: “If you could change one thing in the process, what would it be?”

How?

• Conducted with current tenants during the focus group

• Instructed to answer prompts and fill in the gap­

• Allowed for any interpretation and open-ended response

Findings

• Transparency - Wanting private landlords to be held more accountable with new legislation. This could look like being fined for rejecting applicants with no explanationG

• Support - More financial support for first-time renters or those looking for social housing

• Privacy - Applications to be reviewed by an external party or by the government

Our group came up with 3 different concepts:

• Concept 1: INTERVENE [Sydney Tenancy Advocates - App & Service]

• Concept 2: EDUCATE [Pop-up engagement w/ Informative, gamified care pkgs]

• Concept 3: CONFRONT [Speculative art installation]

We drew out initial sketches, related ideas back to our criteria, themes and made an advantage & disadvantage table of them all prior to finalising with Concept 3: CONFRONT [Speculative Art Installation]

📄 User Testing Proposal

Stage 1: Creating Low fidelity / Paper Prototype
Begin with creating low fidelity / paper prototypes for our designs to physically assess the functionality and usability of the design for all three concepts and understand the spacial component.

Stage 2: Deciding on a final concept
Based off the testing from low fidelity we will evaluate our design against a decision matrix and decide on a final concept.

Stage 3: Low fidelity prototype
Low fidelity prototype user testing - A/B Testing and Think aloud. We aim to combine both techniques to have a comparative analysis while gaining insights into how users feel and think at each part of their journey and understand what influences each action.

Stage 4: Converting low fidelity to high fidelity
Through stage 3 of A/B Testing and Think aloud, we aim to have a thorough grasp of what our design is lacking and how it can be improved to better meet user needs prior to converting it to high fidelity.

Stage 5: High fidelity prototype user testing
Two to three rounds of user testing presenting users with a set of tasks to complete with the think aloud method. This method assists us in refining the flow of the design and as we continue to iterate through user testing.

🧪 User Testing in Action

To test the various aspects of our installation we conducted two complete user tests of our installation, one as a mid fidelity prototype and one as a high-fidelity prototype. We also made iterations of each feature by itself between the low, medium and high fidelity version.

✅ Mid fidelity user testing

Most of the features in this prototype were made from cardboard and inexpensive materials. Our user testing was quite rigorous as we used a variety of methods ranging from interviews, think aloud, user flow maps and time keeping. We had seven people come and test our prototype both as a single visitor and in a pair.

• The results of our mid-fidelity user testing showed that users were unsure of when to start the video and didn’t know they had to pick up a key from the jar. In our end of installation interview we also found that visitors were confused about the purpose of the video and found it didn’t contextualise the housing crisis enough.

• Many test participants expressed that it was hard to remember the names of the different tenants as it was ‘hidden’ amongst the text heavy document- some expressed that the different profiles were not as ‘memorable’.

• Many participants were also observed to go back and forth from other sections as they more often ‘forgot’ which tenants were which- especially regarding the next section (Feature 2: keyboard projections) which refers back to the introduce tenants here.

✅ High fidelity user testing

The high fidelity user testing gave us the chance to test each feature for a final time before our final design. After a rigorous user testing protocol for our mid-fidelity prototype we decided to just use our most effective user testing tools for the final prototype testing which was interview and observation. At the end of the testing we got participants to complete a short interview and made notes based on observations throughout the prototype ( see appendix 1.1). For the end of installation interview we asked the following two questions:

• What did you like about the installation

• Did you have any challenges with the installation?

• Is there any other feedback you’d like to give?

📝 Main user testing insights

🚧 Design iterations: Installation layout

When planning out the layout of the installation we wanted visitors to be able to move about the installation in a circular motion as seen in Fig 4. Given restraints of our mid-fidelity user testing we used an L shape layout and tested this using a user movement map (see Fig 6). The map showed that participants would flow from one end to the other however would go back and forth between the tenant profiles, projection room and keydrop when making their final decision for the keydrop activity. We decided that the circular design would be easiest for the movement of visitors as well as the cohesiveness of the installation. Our final layout can be seen Fig 7. (more iterations can be found in the report listed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtybRdJVzxLRlGxv7i4bnW_t7MCAg9X4/view?usp=sharing)

Upon testing the 2nd iteration in a more high fidelity format, there was definitely less confusion and no participants expressed particular struggles in terms of the different tenants being memorable. Given the little feedback from the high fidelity testing, no changes were made- thus the final design follows a very similar design to the 2nd iteration.

🪄 Our final concept

Feature 0: Introduction Video

Before users begin the walkthrough, users are first met by an instructional video. This video acts as the initial point of contact with our experience. It delivers the necessary instructions needed for the users by providing context and guides to the next steps.

Through the video, users are introduced to the installation, including the topic that it will address. At the end of the video, the user is prompted to ‘pick up a key from the jar’

Feature 1: Tenant Profile
After the initial contact with users through the instructional video, the first main feature is the tenant profile displays. Consisting of three tenants (Steph, Adam, Priti)- each profile is highlighted using an A3 board and an artefact of their “belongings”.
The A3 boards are a collage of their details such as demographic data, personal income/savings as well as occupations in the form of a hypothetical email from a real estate agent, to show as candidates to the “landlord”.

Steph:
Steph is a Receptionist seeking new accommodation closer to her work and also to accommodate her service dog. She is currently earning an income of $550 per week and an additional $200 per week of financial support from disability support payments from the government. A copy of her bank statement shows a bank balance of $12,000.

Adam
Adam is a full time tax accountant seeking a property with his partner. He currently earns an income of $1200 per week combined with his partner's income of $900 per week. They have leased with LJ Hooker for the past 2 years with a good rental history. Their bank statement shows a balance of $50,000 in savings.

Priti:
Priti is a full time, international university student. She is seeking a new property closer to work and for convenience. She currently has a part time job in hospitality. She is earning an income of $500 per week as well as $250 per week as financial support from her parents. Her bank statement shows a balance of $20,000. Priti has no public rental record as previously she was living at a friend’s place for the last 2 years.

Feature 2: Projections
After making initial judgements and observations of each prospective tenant’s application, users are prompted to watch another instructional video. The video acts as a continuation of instructions for the projection and keydrop sections. It specifically sets up users with the confidence to continue the narrative, announcing that the next section uses speculative technology such as “new AI projections” to show what tenants will look like using the property. In doing so, we hope to challenge previous perceptions made from the applications and create more empathy within users to see the ‘human’ side of their prospective tenants.

Feature 3: Keydrop

The 4th feature of our installation was our key drop. Following the previous walkthrough of tenants from black and white applications to AI projections, users are now asked to select a tenant that they would give their key to. There are barriers hidden behind the doors of the key drop not visible to users and as they drop their key into their selected tenant’s slot, it may end up in a different slot. This aims to represent and storytell the various discrimination factors and biases that are currently present in the rental application process as the key slides through the maze.

Written instructions for this section:

• ð  As there is an increase in demand in the rental market, landlords have more liberty to

  choose what they think is their "ideal" tenant. Based on the information you've seen, who

  would your ideal tenant beÒ

• ð  Drop the key into your selected tenant's slot when you have decidedî

• ð  After you have dropped your key, please open the doors to reveal what’s behind.

Feature 4: Reflection & Call to Action
The last part of our installation involves visitors writing a short reflection on what they’ve learnt from installation. For the reflection board, viewers are invited to respond to the question ‘A world where everyone’s a winner in the rental race looks like’ and stick their answers on to sticky notes around the question. Visitors can choose to either draw or write a response to the question. The setup of the reflection activity is straightforward with the question printed on a piece of A4 paper and placed on a large white sheet for people to place their sticky notes (See appendix 2.4). The white paper with the reflection question is stuck on a wall using pins as it needs to be a steady surface for people to place their sticky notes on. A table is needed for visitors to write their reflection with adequate sticky notes (in different colours) and markers (at least 2) to write on the stick notes. The table would be placed in an appropriate location next to the reflection board as seen in appendix 2.5.

Before the visitors exit the installation they will be invited to take action beyond the installation. The call to action consists of an A2 poster hung up on cardboard that directs the viewer to take an A5 flyer depending on if they’re tenants or someone who wants to support tenants. The A2 poster consists of paper glued onto cardboard backing and the A5 flyers are paper as well. The flyers are held in a small brochure container that will make them easy to grab and take away for the visitor (see appendix 2.6). The A2 poster will be hung with pins however can also be hung with wires if need be

Known issues and Versions for the Future

As a team, we knew that approaching this ambitious project would be a daring one, especially being composed of five different features. It would require continual delegation for each member to lead a feature, be in charge of it’s productions whilst communicating to the wider team to ensure our final prototype was consistent. We’re proud to have achieved this, yet we still acknowledge areas that we could’ve improved upon with increased time and resources. This will be explored in further depth below, but briefly it speaks to opportunities to improve the audio experience of the installation and conduct more testing to ensure our experience has optimal inclusivity. The nature of the project also limits the capacity for sizing in numerous features and the inclusion of technological hardware. The team acknowledges these features below for personal reflections on how the team would have progressed better and for critical reflection on future versions of Rental Realities can look like if it was delivered for bigger audiences.

🎬 Conclusion:

To conclude, the "Rental Realities" speculative art installation, while a significant achievement,

highlights crucial areas for improvement for its maintenance, functionality and inclusivity in future versions. If the installation is to be located in a public setting with increased space that is exposed to larger crowds, there needs to be further iterations regarding the hardware and technology used, inclusion of audio and spatial enhancements and greater involvement of diverse needs. Consequently, our final prototype of "Rental Realities” promises to head towards a positive direction that provides more audiences with an impactful and inclusive user experience of Sydney’s rental application proces