So we’re finally here!! The ‘Making’ phase of my Digital Artefact!. Just like as it states in the Week 8 module presentation by “one of the best ways to grow is to share!”. Thus, this is exactly what this process was aimed at for me. I wanted to continue sharing and gaining feedback so I cold grow and reach my digital artefacts maximum potential! On of the main issues for me as a beginner Instagram blogger was the fact that there was so much competition but I utilised this to my advantage and grew my audience this way for example, I chatted to other bookstagrammers an DM’d people who liked their content and ended up enjoying mine!
This module for my digital artefact was also mainly involved around testing! After making my tangible models in my prototyping stage, I placed the emphasis on testing the changes I made through feedback loops. The whole point of this process was to create a ‘natural endpoint’ for the prototyping stage by evaluating the changes I made. It was vital that I didn’t halt my progress altogether but instead altered to meet what would benefit my project the most. So how did I do this? The main issues that arose during my prototyping stage involved the competition I would face in the bookstagram community as well as how to make my project stand out amongst others while still gaining valuable feedback. I mind mapped (as shown in my beta presentation and below) while also asking for feedback on my blog (a successful example of a feedback loop) and once I gained this, I evaluated how to input this into my artefact. An example of this occurring in my model was the feedback that I should focus on a particular genre for one month as his may attract more people and narrow down my focus thus giving a unique interpretation of book reviewing. I evaluated this advice and moved on to testing. I created a blog post specific to horror novels for the month of October and Halloween. The response I got was successful as it attracted a whole other demographic; horror-novel consumers. This allowed me to come to conclusion that in order to successfully share, I must utilise feedback and test this different user groups to gain my audience and followers.
It was also vital for me to test with users who, in a sense, had no interest in my project. It was incredibly interesting to see if my project could gain traction amongst users who wouldn’t normally interact in the bookstagram community and could give me feedback that wasn’t biased and based on others work. I did this by asking friends and family, whom are not readers, to rate my blogs and also twitter users, who do not know me personally. This allowed me to gain large responses in a short amount of time (#FOST anyone?) and also narrow down a perspective for feedback. I did this through online surveys which allowed users to remain anonymous which further allowed for honest and helpful responses. I then received this and adapted it to meet my demands.
The next step in the making stage was to analyse my results, see what worked and what could be improved. I documented results found in surveys and acted accordingly. The main consensus was that people used Instagram the most, liked bookstagram because it showcased their passions or adversely didn’t like it because they weren’t interest in books. While the fact that people who didn’t like literature might not like a book related Instagram was already known, it was helpful to gain this as it drew attention to my artefact from a different audience, one that was impartial and could help. Thus I analysed by carefully observing my audience, interacting with them regularly and implanting the advice I got, no matter good or bad. I always implemented the idea that I should ‘test presuming I was wrong’ (Mitew, 2019). I was open to change and knew that what I did could be done better and always can, hence why I will always look for feedback.