Intercultural Design - Task 1: Proposal

日期：

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

YANG SHUO / 0384037

Bachelor of Design (Hons) in Creative Media / Taylor's University

GCD 61304 / Intercultural Design

Task 1: Proposal

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).

TASK

 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:



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.

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 fast. I remember standing at a stop and not knowing if I was in the right place, which direction the bus was going, or where to walk after getting off. That  "I should know this, but I don' t" feeling is stressful, and it made our topic feel real.

My thinking changed during the research. I used to assume people can just rely on apps, but we noticed how often the real environment doesn't support that. When stop information is unclear and guidance disappears after you get off, even a simple trip becomes stressful. So my focus shifted from "adding more features" to "removing confusion" and making the first decisions easier.

For teamwork, at the beginning we were all a bit shy to speak up, so discussions were quiet and slow. But as we met more, the communication became more natural, and everyone started sharing ideas more actively. For time management, we improved by splitting tasks, setting mini-deadlines, and checking progress early instead of rushing at the end.

评论

发表评论