«I have an application idea» is a dangerous phrase: it creates an illusion of completion. The lecture teaches us to turn an emotional guess into a tested project hypothesis with three conditions: there is a real problem, a mobile form is adequate, the proposed scenario creates the observed effect. Without this framework, there is no project; there is only intention.
Why «Ideas» is a weak word
The word «image» is dangerous because it creates an illusion of completion. A man says «I have an application idea,» gets a dopamine dose from how nice it sounds, and he thinks the main job is over. Actually, it hasn’t started yet. The idea is an emotional guess. It may be true, but it does not contain a framework, a direction of verification or a criterion for failure. So far, there is no criterion for failure, nor is there a project. In our time, when I.I. generates hundreds of applications in a minute, the value of a naked idea aspires to zero. What is really expensive is the ability to turn a guess into a work structure. That’s what we’re gonna do now.
What’s a design hypothesis?
The design hypothesis is a short, verifiable assumption that: 1. There is a certain task, situation or stress, which is a user, behavioral, research or experienced one. 2. All right, all right, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. A mobile application is an adequate form of its decision or research. 3. The proposed interaction scenario creates the observed effect for the user. This definition is recorded in the description of the module. Let’s take him apart.
Interactive 1. From the idea to the hypothesis
Two types of project hypothesis
This module allows for two project formats — two possible design regimes within the same discipline. They can be combined to varying degrees.
The application hypothesis Logic: is a specific user task, and the mobile application is the most appropriate way to solve it. For example: «People moving to a new city cannot quickly find suitable domestic services (doctor, hairdresser, repairs) in the first two weeks because aggregates do not rate context and distance. A mobile application with geolocation and short script questions (what hurts? When do you need it? Are you ready to wait?) it will reduce the search time from hours to minutes and reduce the number of cancellations. What good is this: task specific (first two weeks, new city), mobility justified (geolocation + urgency), effect observed (search time, cancelled records). ## Research / experimental hypothesis Logic: is a phenomenon, experience mode or perception problem that is worth exploring or reorganizing, and a mobile application can become a tool for such research. For example: „A city pedestrian gets used to the route and stops seeing the environment — the city becomes a transit corridor. The application, which each day offers a micro-departure from the normal route (turn to the alley, stop by the window, listen to the sound of the yard), can re-activate attention to the daily space. The effect is checked through an observational diary: does a person in a familiar area notice something that he has not noticed before?“ What good is here: the phenomenon is named (post route), mobility is justified (geolocation + movement + moment), effects are experienced and recorded (diary, new observations).
A prototype is not a result, but an instrument.
The unit of success in this module is not a «ready app» or «almost MVP». You have no code, no infrastructure, no real proliferation. And you don’t have to pretend it’s almost there. Unit of success — hypotheses tested through prototype and testing: 1. hypotheses — what exactly are you suggesting? 2. All right, all right, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. Prototype — what you’re going through. 3. Testing — how exactly do you test it. 4. All right, all right, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. The conclusion is that you realized that it proved that it wasn’t, which was surprising. If the project doesn’t have a hypothesis, there’s nothing to test. If there’s no test, he’s a guess. If there is no conclusion, it remains a decorative opportunity, however neat the prototype may be. More about how the test is done and how to draw conclusions, we’ll talk closer to the end of the module. Now it’s enough to remember the formula: hypothesis + prototype + test + output = project.
Interactive 2. Hypothetical stress test
Combating platitudes
Traps to Avoid
♪ Trap 1 ♪ The dream hypothesis is, «We want people to be healthier/happier/informed.» It’s a value, not a hypothesis. The value says what you want. The hypothesis says, what exactly you will do and how you will check.
♪ Trap 2 ♪ A hypothesis-clone «Like Uber, only for walking dogs.» If your project is described by the formula «like X, but for Y,» then you haven’t found your own problem yet. You borrowed someone else’s mechanic and hope it works in a different context. Sometimes it works, but it’s not enough for a training project. We need your thinking, not someone else’s transplant.
♪ Catch 3. The «Append with IE Recommendations» hypothesis. Ficha is not a hypothesis. Ficha is an instrument inside a hypothesis. First the problem and the scenario, then the means. EI, camera, geolocation, AR — all of this can be part of the solution. But only after you called the problem.
♪ Catch four ♪ A hypothesis without the user Interface, which visualizes air pollution data. For who? What situation? Why would he have that on his phone? If the user is abstract, the script will be abstract, and the screens will be a window without the buyer.
Three philosophical lenses that change the understanding of the hypothesis
And now, a retreat that may seem unexpected, but I think it’s making the previous one more serious. Three ways to think about a hypothesis that doesn’t appear in standard UX textbooks. ♪ Linse 1 ♪ Apothetical hypothesis: Knowledge through denial exists in Christianology * apothetical* tradition: Trying to draw close to God not by saying that there is, but by consistently denying what it is not is. God’s not over. Not material. We don’t get it. We won’t. With each «not» we do not move away, but approach — because we remove false layers. Take this to the design hypothesis.
♪ Linsa 3. Exemption: An application that you do not fully know of Graham Harman, a philosopher of object-oriented ontology, claims that any object — hammer, cat, mobile app — will be removed from its relationship. It means, no matter how much you study an object, no matter how much you describe its functions, properties, use scenarios — it always contains an inner core that slips away. The object is more than the sum of his relationship with the world. Your future app is also an object. And he’s gonna have an expropriated core: users will find in it something you didn’t put in it. They’re not gonna use it the way you thought they would. Some functions will be more important than you thought, and the ones you put on will be undetected. What does this mean for the hypothesis? The hypothesis is not the design of the future product. This is the sonde that you’re sending to the dark territory. You make an assumption — and you break through the wall of the bubble (if you remember the model of black foam, where the world is made up of non-transparent bubbles of objects separated by the walls of seizure). At the moment you’re punctured, you see something — but not everything. And never everything. A hypothesis is not a claim of full knowledge. This is the protocol through which you look into the distant reality of the future project. For applications, this means: don’t believe that your script is exhausting all uses. Make room for surprise. For research projects, this means even more: the subject of your research (attention, urban space, physical experience) is not, in principle, exhausted by your hypothesis. And that’s okay. The hypothesis doesn’t have to explain everything. She’s gonna break through the wall and let you see at least a crack. The conclusion for your hypothesis: your project will be larger than your hypothesis. It’s not a planning failure, it’s an ontological fact. Formulate the hypothesis as a direction of the probe, not as an exhaustive description of the target.
Interactive 3. One theme is two hypotheses.
The role of AI in the hypothesis phase
Interactive 4. Three versions of your hypothesis
What do you have to take from this lecture?
Homework: Finalization of the project hypothesis
- #strong> Finalize three versions of the hypothesis from Interactor 4 — if you haven’t made it to class, finish at home. 2. All right, all right, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. Choose one and type it as: Theme. One sentence. Type of hypothesis. Application / Research. Task or voltage. What’s wrong? For who? What situation? Why the mobile application. What’s the property of the phone working here? Observed effect. What’s gonna change? How do you see that? One analogy and how you differ from it. It’s not «no tax» but an honest comparison. 3. (Bonus) Ask AI to generate five alternative formulations of your hypothesis. Choose the best of his options. If it’s better than yours, explain it than it is. If it’s worse, why don’t you explain it? Transfer Form: card in FigJam or in the general board of the module.
Final formula
The design hypothesis is not a prediction of success, but a frame of honest experiment. It does not promise that your project will be genius, but says: Here’s the task, here’s the form, that’s what I expect. If the expectation isn’t confirmed, it’s not a failure, it’s a result. The bad result is when there’s nothing to test, because there’s no hypothesis. In the next class, we’ll look into what’s behind the hypothesis: context research, user situations, and Job Storyes. The hypothesis sets the direction, the study fills it with flesh.
