Feedback

To evaluate our digital stories and proposal, we need a feedback form that is comprehensively designed to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of our project, meanwhile explicitly organised, making it easy for our audiences to understand. At the formative team presentation in week 10, we sent out a total of 24 feedback forms (19 students, 5 staffs), and got 23 copies back (19 students, 4 staffs).

The feedback form was separated into three sections. The first part is about the content and production of the story, the second part is for evaluation of our digital strategies, For questions in these two parts, most answers offer five ratings to choose, ranging from poor, average to good, as the example shown below.

The narration and production of the digital story are the most important compositions of our group work, and we have spent most of our time on it. In the first part of the feedback form, each question corresponds with our concerns in our production process.

Primarily, we wanted to test our big idea from three perspectives —the creativity of our idea (writing to each other via different media technologies to invoke a reminiscence of our Warwick memories and get a reunion at Dana’s 50th birthday), whether the story was informative (we recognised the differences in the amount of information conveyed in each story) and if we told our stories in a clear manner that both the content and the linkage of stories were comprehensible for the audiences.

Then, we wanted to make sure the quality and appropriateness of out selected photos, and the emotion and clearness of our voices. We had additional concern of the speed of our voices. We already found we have a lot scripts to finish in each 90 seconds and might be a little fast with our narration. However, considering we are doing letters, it seemed to be OK. We were not sure about this and expect to find out from the feedback.

In the second part of the form, we mostly wanted to find out whether our production would be reachable and spreadable among our audiences through our digital strategy. The third part is consisted by open questions with the expectation to collect further thoughts and advices from the audiences.

From the feedback we received after the presentation, we made following conclusions.

Things to improve:

• The biggest problem of our proposal came from the voices, the volume of the voice was not equal, some parts of the narration were not quite clear due to intonation and quite voice. The voices could be more engaging and consistent.
• The design of the slides should be considered that some slides carried too much text to follow.

The good parts:

• The selection of photos was good.
• Our research and analysis of Warwick essence and competitors were thought to be thorough and impressive.
• The idea of imagining our future selves was creative, the connection of stories was good, and the story itself was engaging.
• The choice of target audience — the Millennials.

Other comments relate to our concerns:

• One-third of the respondents thought the pace of the story was fast.
• The story as a whole is informative, though some stories are obviously more informative than others, the mixed worked well.
• Digital strategy was considered effective, some found the alumni focus quite interesting and effective.