FADA1010 Chap.1 Investigating the Design Prompt
Investigating the Design Prompt
Prompt investigation delays the product decision long enough to understand audience, context and intended experience. This chapter shows how to describe an everyday situation in observable terms, distinguish assumptions from evidence, define the change a design might support and write an open opportunity frame.
The aim is a direction specific enough to research but flexible enough to generate several materially different responses.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Open prompts and situated inquiry
- 02
Audience, context and everyday moments
- 03
Desired experience before product form
- 04
Assumptions, evidence and research gaps
- 05
Opportunity statements that remain open
- 06
Testing scope and significance
Worked example · free
Reframe a solution-first idea
- 1Describe the shared-home situation and the communication moment without naming a product.
- 1Identify the intended experience, such as recognition or low-pressure participation.
- 1Write a frame that permits analogue, spatial or digital responses and can be tested against real routines.
Key terms
- Design Prompt
- A starting field for investigation that identifies a theme or challenge without prescribing one correct response.
- Opportunity Frame
- A bounded statement of audience, context and intended change that leaves the design response open.
- Assumption
- A belief treated as true before relevant evidence has been gathered or tested.
- Context
- The social, spatial, cultural and temporal conditions in which a design is encountered.
Investigating the Design Prompt FAQ
Why should the object be delayed?
Starting with an object can turn research into a justification written after the choice. Delaying form keeps attention on the situation, audience and intended experience, allowing several responses to be compared before time is invested in resolution.
How narrow should an opportunity frame be?
It should be bounded enough that another person can picture the audience and moment, yet open enough for several design directions. If only one product can answer it, the frame is too prescriptive; if any product fits, it is too vague.
What counts as evidence during prompt investigation?
Observations, conversations, credible research, mapped relationships and early tests can all contribute. Label assumptions separately and attach a research action to important gaps so the process shows how your first interpretation was challenged or refined.
Assessment move
Use one journal spread for the situation and another for the opportunity frame. On the first, separate observations, assumptions and questions with a simple colour code. Describe who is present, what happens, where it occurs and what makes the moment significant. On the second, write several frames that change the audience, context or desired experience while keeping the product open.
Test each frame against four questions: can someone picture it, is there evidence that it matters, can more than one design response address it, and is the scope workable within the studio term? Bring alternatives to critique rather than presenting one sentence as final. When the frame changes, keep the earlier version and annotate what evidence caused the revision.
That history will later support reflection and make the connection from prompt investigation to the core concept visible. Begin fieldwork with a deliberately small observation window. Spend ten minutes recording actions, pauses, workarounds and environmental cues in one everyday setting, then separate description from interpretation.
The sentence a person moves a chair is an observation; the sentence they feel excluded is an interpretation requiring more evidence. Turn interpretations into questions that could be explored through conversation, repeat observation or a low-risk prototype. This discipline prevents a compelling story from hardening into an unsupported claim. It also reveals details that broad labels such as convenience or joy conceal.
Audit the opportunity frame word by word. A named audience should not stand in for all people, and a context should include enough temporal or spatial detail to guide research. The intended shift should describe a relationship or experience without promising a result that cannot yet be measured. Write one counter-frame that treats the same situation differently.
A quiet waiting area, for example, might be framed around optional social contact, personal recovery time or clearer wayfinding. Comparing those readings makes values visible and helps you choose a direction intentionally. Preserve the trail from prompt to frame in a compact evidence table. For each phrase in the current statement, point to the observation, source, conversation or experiment that supports it.
Mark a phrase provisional when the evidence is weak and schedule the next inquiry. When critique produces a new interpretation, record both the comment and your response; agreement alone is not evidence. Before ideation begins, perform a divergence check by sketching three responses from different media. If all three are essentially the same object, reopen the frame.
If each could plausibly address the situation, the investigation has enough openness to support genuine design choice. Finally, write a boundary note describing what the project will not attempt this term. A defensible boundary protects depth without pretending the wider issue has disappeared.
