After the data was analysed three different themes emerged from the data: function, tools, and motive.
Function
The codes relating to the Function theme are those that describe what the participants used their mobile devices for. These are different than the codes within the Motive them, which are those explainingwhythey used their devices. There is, however, overlap.
There were codes related to using the device for contacting people,will text,will phone, andneed to contact people. There were also codes relating to navigation at the market and beforehand, for getting to the market and for indicating a direction to explore. Finally, there were activities unrelated to the market itself. In particular, time-keeping was mentioned by two
5.2. FOLLOW UP STUDY
different participants and taking and sharing photos was also mentioned.
Tools
These are software tools related to the specific systems which were used by the participants while at the markets. The systems fell into a few group- ings: social media, instant messaging, and photography.
Social media group relates to people describing visiting social media sites or applications while at the market. Not every participant posted con- tent, some were simply reading what others had posted. The social media applications mentioned were Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat (Snapchat, Inc. 2016), and Instagram.
Instant messaging group refers to the tools participants used when they messaged friends or family. The tools mentioned were iMessage, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and SMS.
The camera grouping refers to the applications people used when tak- ing and occasionally sharing photos while at the market. Applications mentioned by the participants were the built in camera application on their phones, Instagram, and Snapchat.
Despite recommendation systems such as FourSquare or Yelp being mentioned in Phase One, only two participants had used them (specifically Yelp) and both were not locals. Similarly, despite maps being mentioned a great deal in the earlier chapter only three participants mentioned using a map.
There were two additional codes in this theme which do not fit with any of the above. One was a paper map whose existence was discovered by the researcher when the participant responded“no, [I] prefer a paper map”when asked whether they had used their phone for navigation. The other was the phone application, that is using the mobile phone to make actual phone
calls.
Motive
This theme relates towhypeople used or in some cases did not use their mobile devices while at the market. This theme has overlap with the Func- tion theme, which dealt withhowthe participants used their devices.
The first motivation for device use came from people who were explic- itly not using their devices to navigate or to uncover any additional in- formation. These people, when asked “why?” all responded in a similar manner: “just wandering”, “just browsing”, “happy to wander”, “enjoy wan-
dering”, or “destination is not important”. This wandering sentiment was
echoed somewhat by other participants who were more familiar with the market:“there is no need to use them”and“I know my way around”. People at the market who did use navigational tools did so“just to get to the market”
and did not use them to navigate through the market space itself.
Similar to the navigation, all but two of of the participants did not use recommendation systems while at the market. One participant, when asked,
had“never heard of them”. Most, however, stated reasons similar to the rea-
sons for not using maps: it is better to experience the market than be told,
“don’t think I need it”,“don’t feel the need”,“exploration is important”, and the far more negative“if I like something, I will like it for my reasons, not someone
else’s”. The participants who did use recommendation systems did so in
a manner closer to browsing than fully trusting: “brings up restaurants, to know which way I should be going”and“for separating the wheat from the chaff”. Finally, there were motivations relating the participant’s phone itself. When the participants were asked explicitly whether they considered their phone an important part of the market experience, only three replied in the affirmative; the remaining all said it was not an important part of the mar-
5.2. FOLLOW UP STUDY
ket. Probing further into why this was, the participants were asked why the device was brought to the market with them. The responses showed the participants considered their devices to be an integral part of their lives:
“feel lost without it”, “peace of mind”, “can’t leave without it”,“always with it for contact”, and“we’re all tethered to them in a way”. One participant, who was a tourist, upon discovering he had no phone connectivity said,“I don’t
realise how important it is”. Another participant said that they had it be-
cause they“need the basics”, without fully explaining what the basics were, although they did say that they did use their phone for“time keeping”, a function mentioned by another participant. All of these comments relate to the desire to be in contact with people, or as one participant said“I need
to contact people”. Only a single participant said nothing about this addic-
tion to their device and its connectivity, saying“the market is a social place”
and that they do not use their device there because they want to“connect
with people”. That participant did still have a mobile phone with them at
the market.
Implications
This additional component of the research reiterates the initial assump- tion that people’s devices are now an integral part of the communal public space experience. People are attached to their devices, even if they do not realise that this is the case. Their devices are arguably as formative on the overall experience as the space itself and the people participating in it, al- beit to different degrees.
From a practical perspective, the design of any prototype will have to keep in mind these three scaffolds: people, space, and the mobile phone. The previous personas and participant data that lead to their creation will be examined in this light, and the designs of the prototype will have to link
back to these three scaffolds. From this additional component the remain- der of the work can continue safely with the knowledge that the device is highly impactful to the experience—as important as the space and people inside of it.
5.3 Theproblemwithsolutions
This stage of the work is concerned with the introduction of an interven- tion in an attempt to improve the place as it currently exists. As was ini- tially conceived, the PADR approach takes the assumption that a problem will exist for the artefact to solve. As stated in Section 3.5, this work does not take that approach and as such the artefact should be fully justified in its existence before being introduced into the environment. The first part of this section is concerned with describing the potential avenues this re- search can take in light of the main ways it was discovered that people use technology at markets: for information seeking, for maintaining and ini- tiating contact, and for the creation and sharing of photographs. For full details on these themes see Section 4.3. All of these however take the ap- proach that there is a problem to be fixed, the latter part of this section will look at the potential avenues that do not attempt tosolvea problem in the space.
5.3.1 Information seeking
Information seeking was the first of the different uses of technology. The information sought depended upon the individual and their goals. Infor- mation seeking fell into a few different categories: searching for informa- tion about the market itself (such as opening hours), searching for informa- tion about stalls inside the market (such as do they have particular prod-