Intercultural Design

2 / 2 / 2026 -22 / 2 / 2026 （Week 1- Week 3）

YANG SHUO / 0384037

Bachelor of Design (Hons) in Creative Media 

GCD 61304 / Intercultural Design

---

INSTRUCTION

---

LECTURES

Week 01  

In this week's lecture, we mainly learned about the research directions and task requirements for this semester.

This module uses Continuous Assessment + Final Assessment, with the Final Assessment consisting of the final project and portfolio submission.

The four assignments and their weights/weeks are as follows:

• AT1 Proposal — 30%: Week 3
• AT2 Field Study — 30%: Week 5
• AT3 Research & Reflect — 10%: Week 7
• AT4 Final Project — 30%: Week 7

- Culture & Design

Culture and design are inseparable. We live in a visual information culture, so visuals shape how people understand the world. Visual design is made by people to represent meaning. It has a purpose and a communication goal. 

Our research should ask: Why does it exist, and why does it look like this? 

- Cultural sensitivity

• Symbols and images can change meaning across cultures. Avoid misunderstanding or offense. 
• Colors carry cultural meanings. Check local meanings before choosing a palette. 
• Typography and language should fit the culture. Translation must be accurate. 
• Cultural sensitivity is not only aesthetics. It affects function, usability, and user experience. 

Week 02

- Impact vs. Decoration

Fig 1.1 Comparison Table of Impact and Decoration
(Organized Based on Lecture Content)

This lecture said many student projects look good, but they do not do anything. If you remove the visuals and nothing is left, the design fails. 

It also explains "decorative design". It starts with aesthetics and solves assumed problems, not lived ones. It often ignores real users, local climate, and local culture. The result is design for portfolio, not for society. 

- Empathy Mapping

• Definition

A tool used to understand user needs and pain points by analyzing what the target users see, hear, say, do, think, and feel.

• Core Elements 

1.  Target Users: Identify the subjects of the study (e.g., migrant workers in cities, people with disabilities, night shift workers, etc.).
2.  Behaviors and Needs: Users' daily activities (e.g., commuting methods), and the problems they face (e.g., lack of accessible facilities).
3. Environment and Feelings: The physical environment users are in (e.g., high temperatures, heavy rain) and their emotional experiences (e.g., fatigue, safety concerns).

---

PROJECT

- Project 1: Proposal

 Theme: Designing Urban Future 

In this project, you will work in intercultural teams to investigate urban mobility experiences within a city, focusing on how people move through the city — and where existing systems succeed or fail different communities. Through research, observation, and design experimentation, you will develop human-centered design interventions that respond to real urban challenges in the city, aligned with sustainability, inclusivity, and community impact.

Process

Based on past experience and on-site investigations, we found that the current issues in KL's public transportation system are mainly unclear guidance within stations and inaccurate shuttle connection times. In particular, many foreigners visiting KL for the first time are not familiar with the signs, so it is especially important to make the guidance signs more straightforward and simple.

After discussion, our team unanimously agreed to set the research direction as "Improvement of the public transportation system in KL". We shared our proposals in the WhatsApp group chat and voted to decide the final topic range.

Fig 1.2 Screenshot of the discussion process (partial)

Next, we compiled a preliminary set of proposals and asked the professor for some guidance and feedback. 

Here is our preliminary proposal (PDF):

Our lecturer's feedback is as follows:

1. How's Idea #2 much difference than Idea #3?
2. I'd suggest choose a specific area, study in depth the problem in regards to public transportation info display there, then focus on specific group of people that are impacted by it. Current problem statement is too general and broad.

In response to this feedback, we held another group discussion. We believe that the target audience for these proposals should be people using KL public transportation for the first time (foreigners, people who rarely use public transport, etc.). 

As for proposals 2 and 3, we decided to break down the content into more detailed categories. 

• Proposal 2 more aligned with intelligent machine assistance, providing commuters with an electronic timetable of real-time connecting services at the station.
• Proposal 3  is a flat map combined with physical signage display, guiding people at the station with locations and directions.

My role in the group was to collect information together with another classmate. I looked up academic papers on public transportation systems and road signs on Google Scholar. 

Fig 1.3 Screenshot of search results

I used to think that these issues were something urban construction should consider, and perhaps more related to science and engineering. But while researching, I found that they are also full of the spirits of design and humanistic care. 

I also thought of some examples from other countries that could be useful.

 For instance, Tokyo, which has one of the most advanced subway systems in the world. The signage inside its subway stations is multilingual and very prominent.

Fig 1.4 Signs inside Tokyo subway stations
(Source: https://www.tokyometro.jp/en/)

Then there's Hong Kong, China, whose subway station signs are both practical and aesthetically pleasing. They allow passengers in the train to clearly see the name of each station and have also become a popular spot for tourists to take photos.

Fig 1.5 The prominent station name on the walls of Hong Kong MTR platforms
(Source: Rednote)

I also drew a draft of the plan based on our previous discussion results, which can be viewed in the PPT.

Here is our final proposal 

PPT:

Presentation:

- Project 2: Data Collection

To better understand how people use Kuala Lumpur’s public transportation system, our group visited several transport stations in the city. The purpose of this visit was to observe how wayfinding, signage, and information are presented in real station environments, and to identify problems that might affect passengers, especially those who are unfamiliar with the system.

Field inspection

1. Locations

• Bukit Bintang MRT Station
• Tun Razak Exchange MRT Station
• Several KTM stations in the city area

These stations represent different types of public transportation systems, which allowed us to compare how information and guidance are designed across different environments.

2. Experiences

During the site visits, our group collected observational data from different types of public transport stations. We documented the layout of stations, the placement of signage, and how information is presented to passengers. Photos and notes were taken to record specific examples of wayfinding and information systems in each location.

At Bukit Bintang MRT Station and Tun Razak Exchange MRT Station, we observed the distribution of directional signs, exit indicators, station maps, and ticketing information. We also recorded how passengers interact with these elements when navigating the station.  

Fig 2.1-2.3 The signage and facilities
inside Bukit Bintang MRT station 

Around Bukit Bintang, we also visited several nearby bus stops. At these locations, we documented the bus stop signage, route information boards, and the overall accessibility of the stops from nearby transport stations. This helped us understand how passengers transfer between rail systems and surface transport in busy urban areas.

Fig 2.4-2.6 The bus stop near Bukit Bintang

In addition, we visited several KTM stations to observe platform signage, train schedule displays, and station name indicators. By comparing these different environments, we gathered reference examples of both effective and problematic wayfinding elements within Kuala Lumpur’s public transportation system.

Fig 2.7 The sign at KTM station

Interviews

Our group interviewed several people who had used Kuala Lumpur public transport before but were still relatively new to the system. Most described it as modern and convenient. However, they often felt confused when choosing routes, identifying train directions, or finding platforms, and some signage was not noticeable enough for quick navigation.

This is the account of our interview content:

This is our final data collection report:

- Project 3: Research & Reflect

This is the final stage of our wayfinding design project, where we developed our ideas into a complete visual system. Our main goal was to improve how people navigate public transportation in Kuala Lumpur, especially for first-time users like tourists or international students.

1.Research Recap

In Task 1, we explored existing wayfinding systems and identified several common issues. Many users struggle not because information is missing, but because it is difficult to find or understand quickly. Based on that, we proposed three initial directions.

In Task 2, we did observations and interviews. A lot of people mentioned similar problems — signs are not clear enough, sometimes they disappear at turning points, and you suddenly don’t know where to go anymore.

This made me realize something quite simple: it’s not about adding more design, but making sure people can actually see and follow it.

2.Key Design Concept

Our main idea is to make routes easy to understand at a glance. Instead of making users stop and read, the system should let them follow directions while moving. So we focused on keeping information clear, visible, and continuous, making it easier to navigate without overthinking.

3. Task progress

Our group divided the tasks among the members. My role in this project was mainly working on the written content. I went through our Task 1 and Task 2 reports again, reorganized the materials, and picked out the key points. Then I combined those with ideas from our group discussions and turned them into a more structured document.

Another important part was doing some research. I used Google Scholar to search for keywords like public transportation systems and wayfinding, and selected articles that are relevant to our topic.

After finishing the writing of the content, I handed it over to the team member responsible for making the PPT.

Fig 3.1  Division of labor among members

Fig 3.2-3.3  Screenshots of the papers I found (partial)

4.Final Design

For the final outcome, we developed a few main parts.

1. Overhead Hanging Signs and Wall Signage
2. Elevator and Column Signage
3. Floor Guidance
4. Multi-level Comprehensive Station Maps
5. Outdoor Pillars and Connection Area Signage

Presentation

PPT

---

FEEDBACK

Week 1

The overall direction is feasible, but the design proposal should not involve major infrastructure changes. It needs to allow detailed design to influence people's experience.

Week 2

• Proposal 2 focuses on the temporal aspect, providing commuters with an electronic timetable of real-time connecting services at the station; 
• Proposal 3 focuses on the spatial aspect, guiding people at the station with locations and directions.

Week 3

This week is the Chinese New Year holiday, so there is no feedback.

Week 4

The tutor suggested adding more data collection methods, such as interviews or questionnaires. They also recommended collecting information from smaller transport stops. In addition, the interview findings should be clearly linked to our proposal to show how user feedback supports the design direction.

Week 5

Task 2 submitted, start the process of task 3.

Week 6

After listening to the report on Task Three, the professor pointed out that our final project does not actually have to strictly follow the proposal from Task 1, but should be more based on the results of the field investigation in Task 2.

Week 7

Task 3 submitted.

---

REFLECTIONS

This project helped me understand Designing Urban Futures in a more personal way. I don’t take public transport often, so when I do, I get confused quite easily. I remember standing at a stop and not knowing if I was in the right place or which direction to go. That “I should know this, but I don’t” feeling is stressful, and it made our topic feel very real.

My thinking changed during Task 1 and Task 2. At first, I thought people could rely on apps, but through observation and interviews, I realized the environment itself often doesn’t support that. When information is unclear or guidance disappears, even simple trips become stressful. So my focus shifted from adding more features to reducing confusion.

The site visit made this even clearer. We saw how people hesitate when signs are not obvious. There was also a small moment at Bukit Bintang station — a passerby thought we were lost and offered help. When we explained our project, he said it was meaningful. It made our team members all became more confident.

In the final stage, I also started thinking more about how to explain design, not just make it. Writing the content helped me understand our decisions more clearly.

For teamwork, we were quite quiet at first, but later became more open and collaborative. We also improved our time management by dividing tasks and checking progress earlier.