Lesson Report:
**Title: From Policy Proposals to Lived Experience: UI Design and Micro-Narratives for Speculative Policy Worlds**
Today’s class shifted students from top-down policy thinking into bottom-up, lived-experience thinking in preparation for their speculative narrative final. Using each other’s policy proposals, students designed concrete user interfaces (UI) that would appear in an ordinary person’s life under those policies, and then drafted short narrative vignettes showing a character interacting with those interfaces. The objective was to bridge analytic policy work with imaginative storytelling grounded in specific, plausible details.
—
## Attendance
– **Students explicitly mentioned as absent:** 1
– Amin (not present when the instructor looked for him during the UI definition discussion)
*(Others may have been missing, but only Amin was clearly identified as absent by name.)*
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity Labels)
### 1. End-of-Course Logistics and Assignments Overview
**a. Final week structure**
– Instructor reminded students that this is the **last week of class**:
– Class today (Tuesday) and **final class on Thursday**.
– After Thursday, students must:
– Submit the **final project** (speculative narrative).
– Confirm **completion of all video journals**, including the newly posted fourth one.
**b. Video journals (especially the 4th one)**
– Instructor pointed students to **eCourse → bottom of the course page → last tab** where the **4th video journal submission link** is located.
– Clarifications:
– If a student **already recorded a “bonusâ€� or unassigned last video journal earlier**, that recording can be submitted as **Video Journal 4**; no need to record a new one.
– Lillian asked if they can send the last video journal on the **22nd**:
– Instructor confirmed: **Yes, the last video journal is due on the 22nd**, at the **same time as the final project**.
– For students who lack access to eCourse (e.g., Elijah), the instructor will **send instructions separately** for submitting both:
– The extra credit assignment details.
– Any missing video journal submissions.
– Students like Banu and Elijah who **previously recorded but couldn’t submit**:
– Those recordings can be submitted now and will **count toward the required set** of video journals.
**c. Extra credit assignment**
– Instructor stated that an **extra credit assignment** will be **posted on eCourse tonight**.
– Elijah (no eCourse access) will get the **extra credit details directly** from the instructor.
**d. Final project format and citation style**
– A question was raised about the **format of the final assignment**:
– Instructor clarified: For the **final project** (speculative narrative), use **APSA citation style**, **same as for the policy memo**.
– This applies particularly to:
– In-text citations.
– Bibliography/reference list.
—
### 2. Framing the Speculative Narrative Final: From Policymaker to “Average Person�
**a. Objective for the week and the assignment**
– The instructor explained the **core goal** for this class and Thursday’s:
– By **end of Thursday’s class**, each student should:
– Have **chosen a topic/policy** for their **speculative narrative assignment**.
– Feel comfortable not only with the **policy content** but with **inhabiting the perspective of an ordinary person** living under the long-term effects of that policy.
– Emphasis on **perspective shift**:
– Move away from a **policymaker’s “top-downâ€�/Wikipedia/god’s-eye view** of policy.
– Move toward the **subjective, day-to-day experiences** of:
– An “average personâ€� living 5–10 years after the policy has been implemented.
– Ask: *“What actually happens to a normal person because of this policy?â€�* rather than only *“What does this policy intend to do?â€�*
**b. Recalling prior work and shared materials**
– Instructor re-shared the link to a **Google Doc with multiple tabs** (each tab = one student’s policy proposal and related analytical work).
– This document contains:
– Policy summaries.
– Critiques and potential negative consequences.
– Preliminary world-building ideas from the previous class.
—
### 3. Warm-Up Activity: Experiencing Policy as an “Average Person�
**Activity name: “One Specific Detail in a Policy World�**
**Instructions:**
– Students were asked to:
1. Open the shared **Google Doc**.
2. Choose **one random tab** that they **had not yet worked with**.
3. Imagine themselves as a **“regular person�** (self-defined) living in a world where that tab’s policy has been in effect for **5–10 years**.
4. Envision **one concrete experiential detail** of how the policy shows up in everyday life, such as:
– A **notification** on a phone.
– A **changed social media feed**.
– A **physical letter** in the mail.
– A **paper or online form** required to access a service.
5. Optionally, use an **AI image generator** (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, etc.) to create a **visual of this experience**.
**Example reminder from last class:**
– Instructor referenced the previous example involving **Ermahan’s insurance policy being hiked** because he kept too much ice cream in his freezer:
– Policy effect was visualized as a **notification on his phone** informing him of the insurance change.
– This served as a model of the type of **precise, visual, experiential detail** students should aim for.
**Discussion of sample warm-up outputs**
1. **Elijah on Lillian’s policy (France, digital electoral transparency)**
– Policy summary (Lillian):
– Creation of a **Digital Electoral Transparency Authority (DETA)**.
– New institution to **monitor and control deepfakes and fake news**, especially during **election periods** in France.
– Goal: reduce the impact of politically manipulative AI-generated content.
– Elijah’s extension:
– Envisioned the **emergence of “deepfake detectorâ€� as a profession and field of study**, involving:
– Experts developing AI models to **detect deepfakes**.
– A formalized **employment sector** around deepfake detection, likely tied to the new authority.
– Instructor feedback and further elaboration:
– Strong start, but pushed Elijah to go **further into the average user’s experience**:
– Example scenario:
– A French user, “Jean-Pierre,â€� scrolling through **Instagram (or a future equivalent)**.
– When a video of a politician appears, a **visible label** (e.g., bottom-right corner) states **“Detected as AI-generatedâ€�** or “Disclosed as AI.â€�
– This label directly affects how the user interprets the video:
– With the label: user might quickly conclude “*This is fake; I don’t have to take it seriously*.â€�
– Without the label: user might conclude the reverse—“*This must be real*â€�—and **switch off critical scrutiny**.
– Some potential design twists:
– Removal or disabling of **share** functionality for flagged AI-generated content.
– Color-coded or prominently placed labels that alter **user trust and virality**.
– This example helped clarify:
– How **UI elements** encode the policy.
– How **perceived authenticity** might be subtly governed by what labels are (or are not) present.
2. **Erman on Wu Ti’s policy (Myanmar, algorithmic amplification of minority voices)**
– Policy context as recalled:
– Platform(s) in **Myanmar** (e.g., Facebook) would be **legally mandated** to change their **recommendation algorithms**.
– Purpose: make **minority voices and perspectives more visible** relative to majority voices.
– Erman’s imagined user experience:
– A “common citizenâ€� using **Instagram or Facebook** for news:
– Feeds would increasingly show **posts expressing minority viewpoints**.
– Algorithm would aim to **present “both sidesâ€�** (or multiple sides), making the feed look **less one-sided**.
– User reaction: *“Hmm, maybe it’s not as one-sided as I thought.â€�*
– Instructor elaboration:
– Technical reminder of **how algorithms work now**:
– Current social media algorithms tend to promote content with **high engagement** (likes, comments, shares) and a good match with the user’s inferred preferences.
– Under Wu Ti’s proposed policy:
– Platforms would be required to **override or modify this logic** to **intentionally surface minority-related content**, even if **engagement numbers are lower**.
– Concrete experiential changes:
– Users may begin seeing more **“obscureâ€� posts** with fewer likes and comments.
– The **composition of the feed** (who appears, what topics are visible) becomes more **diverse and less popularity-driven**.
– This anchored the idea that **policy→algorithm→feed→user perception** is a chain that can be described narratively and visually.
—
### 4. Main Design Activity I: Introducing UI and Designing One Policy Interface
**Activity name: “Designing the User Interface of Your Policy World�**
**a. Explanation of UI (User Interface)**
– Instructor checked student familiarity with the term **UI**:
– UI = **User Interface**.
– Common in **software/app design** and closely related to **UX (User Experience)**.
– It is **not** the underlying logic or algorithms, but:
– The **buttons**, **visuals**, **screens**, **labels**, **menus**, etc. that users see and interact with.
– Example: Zoom’s UI:
– Mute/unmute button with moving mic volume bar.
– Video on/off controls.
– Layout of user tiles and chat.
– These visible elements are **UI design choices**.
**b. Task setup**
– Students were instructed to:
1. Return to the **Google Doc**.
2. This time, from their own tab, **scroll down two tabs** (skipping one), then open the **next tab**:
– Example: If Elijah is on his own tab, he would go to **Ermahan’s** tab; Amina would go to **Lillian’s**, etc.
3. Read **that peer’s entire tab**:
– Policy summary.
– Analytical notes and critiques.
– Any ideas already sketched.
4. Ensure they understood at least:
– **What the policy is.**
– **How it is supposed to work in practice.**
**c. The UI design prompt**
– After reading, students were asked to:
– **Design one specific UI experience** that an ordinary person would have as a **direct result** of that policy being implemented.
– The UI could be:
– **Digital** (app screen, notification, dashboard, label, toggles, “AI-generatedâ€� warning, etc.).
– Or **analog/physical** (paper forms, ID cards, mailed notices, official signage, physical kiosks, etc.).
– Requirements:
– Describe the UI **in as much detail as possible**:
– Visual layout.
– Wording of labels or warnings.
– Any disabled or enabled controls (e.g., share button grayed out).
– Colors, icons, badges, or symbols.
– Write at least **2–3 descriptive sentences**.
– Optionally, **use an AI image generator** to create a mockup of this UI and **paste the image into the Google Doc**.
– Time given: **About 10 minutes.**
**d. Instructor’s brief review and feedback**
– As time wound down, the instructor skimmed some entries:
– Mentioned seeing an image on **Bekaim’s tab**, noting an interesting visual: a **“thermometerâ€� inserted into the side of an iPhone** on a “Civicsâ€� page—suggesting a **“temperature checkâ€�** or intensity metric for civic/political content.
– Commented on the variety and creativity of student-generated images and UI sketches, including:
– Stylized oversight dashboards.
– Labeled content feeds.
– Visually altered social media interfaces.
This phase successfully had students **translate abstract policy mechanics into visible, interactive artifacts**.
—
### 5. Main Design Activity II: Writing Micro-Narratives from Within the UI
**Activity name: “A Character Encounters the Policy�**
**a. Moving from snapshot to story**
– Instructor explained the **next step**: going beyond static UI snapshots to **dynamic, narrative interaction**.
– Goal:
– Use the newly designed UI as a **scene setting** and then:
– Insert a **specific character** into that scene.
– Show **how they interact** with the UI.
– Depict **emotions, confusion, acceptance, or unintended consequences**.
**b. Example narrative (DETA + Instagram reels)**
– Referring again to Lillian’s French digital oversight example, the instructor showed an (admittedly “goofyâ€�) AI-generated Instagram-like mockup:
– A **reels interface** with a large **red label** from DETA (“detected as AI-generatedâ€�).
– The **share button** is visually present but **grayed out/disabled**.
– Instructor provided a **sample narrative paragraph** using a character, **Izirak**:
– As Izirak scrolled down the page, she saw that her cousin had uploaded a video from a local protest. On top of the video was a large red banner, “According to the DETA, this video has been detected as AI-generated.â€� Izirak was confused. She didn’t think her cousin would upload something made by AI. She tried to share it, but the share button had been grayed out.
– This example illustrated:
– How to **anchor the story in specific UI elements** (“large red banner,â€� “share button grayed outâ€�).
– How to show **immediate user reactions** (confusion, doubt).
– How subtle UI constraints (**can’t share**) instantiate **policy power** in everyday life.
**c. Student task: write their own interaction vignette**
– Instructions:
– Using the **UI image/layout they just designed**, students must:
– Invent a **character** in that world.
– Place the character in a **specific situation** where they interact with that UI.
– Write a **short paragraph (3–4 sentences)**, covering:
– What the character is doing.
– What they see on the screen/form/letter.
– What they try to do (e.g., submit, share, opt out).
– How they feel (confused, relieved, angry, indifferent, etc.).
– Any **friction, barriers, or unexpected outcomes**.
– The vignette should be added to the **appropriate Google Doc tab** alongside the UI description/image.
– Time allocation: roughly **10 minutes**.
**d. Peer examples and meta-commentary**
– The instructor briefly looked at more student-generated content near the end:
– Commented on an image apparently created on **Anousha’s/Gavin’s tab**, in which:
– Gavin is scrolling through Instagram and sees a post describing **his own experience** with AI-generated content.
– This created a playful meta-loop illustrating how **AI and policy can reflect users back at themselves** (“Classic AI looking into the depths of your soulâ€�).
– Instructor emphasized that this work will be **built upon on Thursday**, to:
– Connect the **macro-level policy description** with:
– The **micro-level UI encounter**, and
– The **individual’s ongoing story** under that policy.
—
### 6. Closing: Next Steps and Flexibility in Final Project Topics
**a. Homework between now and Thursday**
– Students were asked to:
– Return to **their own tab** in the Google Doc outside of class.
– If an image/UI description exists, **“internalizeâ€� it**:
– Think carefully about how that interface shapes life in the policy world.
– Begin reflecting on whether they will:
– **Stick with their original policy memo topic** for the speculative narrative, or
– **Choose a new policy/world** that they now find more compelling.
**b. Flexibility in final project topic**
– Instructor clearly stated:
– For the **final speculative narrative paper**:
– Students are **not required** to stay with the policy topic from their earlier **policy memo**.
– They can:
– **Continue with the same policy**, drawing on their memo research.
– Or **switch to a completely new policy and world**, if they prefer.
– Thursday’s class will involve:
– **Fleshing out** the connection between:
– Big-picture policy goals and design, and
– The **individual experiences** they began to narrate today.
– Students will **pitch/explain** the world they are building for their speculative narrative.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Urgency: Before Next Class (Thursday)
– **Choose or narrow a topic for the speculative narrative final**
– Decide whether to:
– Continue using your **policy memo topic**, or
– Shift to a **new policy/world** that you want to explore.
– Come to Thursday’s class prepared to **speak about the world you’re building** and how an ordinary person experiences that policy.
– **Review and refine your UI + micro-narrative in the Google Doc**
– Go to your **own tab**:
– Make sure your **UI description and character vignette** are present and intelligible.
– If an image was not created in class, consider generating one before Thursday.
– Be ready to **discuss how your UI concretely expresses the policy**.
– **Instructor: Send extra credit + submission instructions to students without eCourse**
– Follow up specifically with **Elijah** (and any others without eCourse access) so they:
– Understand how to submit **video journals** and
– Receive the **extra credit assignment details**.
### Medium Urgency: Before December 22 (Final Due Date)
– **Complete and submit Video Journal 4**
– Locate the submission under **eCourse → bottom of page → last tab**.
– If you already recorded an “extraâ€� video earlier to match the final prompt, submit that; no need to re-record.
– Deadline: **22nd**, same time as the final project.
– **Complete and submit the final speculative narrative project**
– Ensure:
– **APSA citation style** is used for any references.
– The narrative demonstrates:
– A coherent **policy world**.
– A clear **ordinary-person perspective** grounded in specific, sensory details (like the UI work done today).
– **Resolve any outstanding video journal submission issues**
– Students who recorded journals earlier but could not upload (e.g., **Banu**, **Elijah**) should:
– Upload the old recordings to the proper eCourse link, or
– Follow any alternate submission instructions the instructor provides.
### Lower Urgency / Ongoing
– **Monitor extra credit posting on eCourse**
– Once posted, interested students should:
– Review the instructions.
– Decide whether to complete the extra credit based on workload and interest.
– **Instructor: Track participation and content in the shared Google Doc**
– Before grading or final project consultations:
– Review each student’s **policy tab**, **UI description**, and **micro-narrative** to understand how their final speculative narrative may evolve.
—
This report should give you enough detail to reconstruct the session: its administrative clarifications, the progression from warm-up to UI design to narrative vignette, and how all these pieces are scaffolding students toward a grounded, vivid speculative narrative final.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Final Video Journal #4
You will complete and submit your fourth and final video journal, which closes out the video journal component of the course and lets you reflect on the class as you head into the final project. This builds directly on the same kind of work you did for the first three video journals.
Instructions:
1. Confirm whether you already recorded an additional video journal earlier in the semester that did not yet have a place to be submitted.
– As discussed in class, “if you’ve already recorded basically that last video journal that was never assigned, that’s the fourth video journal. Just submit that there. You don’t have to record a new one.â€�
2. If you already have such a recording:
1. Re‑watch it briefly to make sure you’re satisfied that it meets the general guidelines you followed for the previous video journals (content, length, tone).
2. Save it in an accessible video format (e.g., .mp4, .mov, etc.) with a clear filename (e.g., `YourName_VideoJournal4`).
3. If you *do not* already have a suitable recording:
1. Plan and record a new Video Journal #4 that follows the same expectations as your earlier video journals (same style, reflection focus, and approximate length you’ve been using all semester).
2. Speak to the camera clearly, as you have in previous journals, and make sure the audio is understandable.
3. Save the file with a clear filename (e.g., `YourName_VideoJournal4`).
4. Submit the video:
1. Go to the course site and scroll to the very bottom of the page.
2. Locate the submission area labeled for the **fourth / final video journal**.
3. Upload your video file and complete any required submission fields.
4. If you do not have access to the course site, follow the procedure you’ve been using this semester (for example, sending the video directly to the professor, as mentioned in class for students without platform access).
5. Deadline:
1. Submit Video Journal #4 **by the 22nd**, at the **same time as the final project**, as confirmed in class.
2. Make sure the upload has fully processed and that you see confirmation that your submission was received.
6. Final check:
1. After submitting, verify that the video plays correctly from the submission page.
2. Note for yourself that you have now completed all four required video journals, since you will later need to “mention that you’ve completed the last of the video journalsâ€� when you submit your final project.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Final Speculative Narrative Project (Final Paper)
For your final assignment, you will write a speculative narrative that imagines life as an “average person� living 5–10 years into the future under the policy you choose. The purpose is to move from a top‑down policymaker perspective to a bottom‑up, lived-experience perspective, using the world‑building and UI exercises we practiced in this lesson.
Instructions:
1. Choose your policy/world for the narrative.
1. Decide whether to:
– Stay with the policy you worked on in your **policy memo**, or
– Choose a **completely new policy / world** that you are more interested in exploring.
2. Remember the instructor’s clarification: “for your final paper, you do not need to write about the topic from your policy memo… If you’d like, you can totally stick with the policy that you proposed in your previous assignment.â€�
2. Review your policy tab and class work.
1. Open your tab in the shared Google Doc from class.
2. Re‑read:
– Your original policy proposal summary.
– The critique/analysis you and your peers wrote (possible negative consequences, implementation details, etc.).
– Any UI description and image you created or that was created for your policy world.
3. Make sure you have a clear, concise understanding of:
– What the policy is.
– How it is supposed to work in practice.
– Where and how ordinary people would actually encounter it (apps, forms, notifications, algorithm changes, etc.).
3. Before the next class: internalize your UI/detail work.
1. Go to **your own Google Doc tab outside of class**, as requested.
2. Look carefully at the UI element or image that represents how an average person encounters your policy (e.g., a label on a social media video, a modified newsfeed, a physical form, a phone notification).
3. “Internalize� this UI element:
– Ask yourself: What exactly does the person see on the screen or on paper?
– What action are they prompted to take (click, sign, share, confirm, etc.)?
– How might they feel about it (confused, reassured, angry, indifferent)?
4. Think about how this small interaction connects “the top-level experience� (the policy design and intentions) to “the bottom-level experience… that the average person is having,� as the instructor emphasized.
4. Define your main character and point of view.
1. Invent an “average� person appropriate to your policy context (e.g., a typical social media user in France, a citizen using Facebook in Myanmar, a patient dealing with an insurance algorithm, etc.).
2. Give them:
– A name.
– Basic background (age, job or studies, where they live, any relevant identity traits).
– A specific reason why they interact with the policy (e.g., they scroll through a feed, receive a denial notice, try to post content, apply for a service).
3. Decide whether the narrative will be told in:
– First person (“I…â€�) from the character’s viewpoint, or
– Third person (“she/he/they…â€�) closely following that character’s thoughts and experiences.
5. Set the time and place of your story.
1. Place your narrative **5–10 years after** the policy has been implemented, as the instructor repeatedly modeled (“living in this world in which this policy has existed for the last 5, 10 years or so�).
2. Clearly anchor the setting:
– Country or region (e.g., France, Myanmar, etc.).
– Type of environment (urban neighborhood, rural town, campus, office, etc.).
3. Briefly note to yourself how common or “normal� this policy feels to people now that it has been in place for several years.
6. Plan at least one key scene using your UI element.
1. Choose a specific moment in which your character interacts with the **UI or concrete mechanism** of the policy (like the examples we discussed in class):
– A social media user sees a red “AI-generatedâ€� banner over a political video and notices the share button is disabled.
– A Facebook user in Myanmar suddenly sees more posts from minority voices with low engagement, because the recommendation algorithm has changed.
– A citizen gets a new type of notification, form, or message that reflects how the policy now operates.
2. Outline what happens in that moment:
– What exactly appears on their screen/paper/phone?
– What text, symbols, labels, or buttons do they see?
– What do they try to do (scroll, share, sign, ignore, complain, etc.)?
– What *unexpected* or emotionally significant result do they encounter (confusion, relief, outrage, indifference that later becomes important, etc.)?
7. Sketch the overall narrative arc.
1. Decide on a simple beginning–middle–end structure:
– **Beginning**: Introduce the character in their everyday routine and show the policy as part of the background of their world.
– **Middle**: Focus on the key scene(s) where the policy meaningfully affects them—especially via the UI or daily-life mechanisms we designed.
– **End**: Show the consequences of that encounter: how their beliefs, opportunities, relationships, or political views change (or fail to change).
2. Make sure at least some of the “long-term effects of this policy� are visible through this personal story, not just as abstract analysis.
8. Draft the narrative.
1. Write your speculative narrative according to the length and formatting expectations already given for the final assignment.
2. While drafting, keep the instructor’s guidance in mind:
– Stay in the mindset of the **person experiencing** the policy’s effects, rather than a policymaker “looking from the top down.â€�
– Use **specific visual and experiential details** (notifications, labels, interface changes, letters, forms, etc.) instead of vague generalities.
3. Integrate at least one of the UI experiences you developed today into a full scene, as in the example paragraph the instructor modeled with Izirak and the protest video.
9. Connect back to the policy logic.
1. Without turning the narrative into an essay, subtly show how:
– The design of the policy (top-level) leads to what your character experiences (bottom-level).
– There may be both intended benefits and unintended side effects (e.g., greater transparency but over‑trust of unlabeled videos, more diverse posts but confusion or backlash, etc.).
2. Use small cues—news in the background, conversations, character assumptions—to hint at how society has adjusted to the policy.
10. Add any necessary citations in APSA style.
1. If you reference real policies, events, or sources (for context, inspiration, or quotes), format your citations using **APSA style**, as confirmed in class: “when it comes to citations, please use APSA citations, just like I asked you to do for the policy memo.�
2. Include a properly formatted reference list/bibliography at the end if required by the course instructions.
11. Revise and polish.
1. Re‑read your narrative and check:
– Does it clearly center the perspective of an “average personâ€� living under the policy?
– Are the UI/experiential details vivid enough that a reader can “seeâ€� the world you’ve built?
– Does the story implicitly communicate something meaningful about the long-term impact of the policy?
2. Edit for clarity, coherence, grammar, and style.
12. Submit your final project.
1. Save your narrative in the required file format with a clear filename (e.g., `YourName_FinalSpeculativeNarrative`).
2. Upload it to the final assignment submission area on the course site by the deadline (the same general deadline as mentioned for the last video journal, i.e., on the 22nd).
3. When you submit, remember that you should also be ready to “mention that you’ve completed the last of the video journals,â€� as the instructor noted for end-of-course requirements.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Optional Extra-Credit Assignment
An optional extra-credit assignment is available if you would like to earn additional points and further engage with the course material.
Instructions:
1. Locate the extra-credit assignment instructions.
1. Go to the course site and look for the extra-credit assignment that the instructor indicated would be posted.
2. If you do not have access to the course site, contact the instructor directly to receive the extra-credit details (as mentioned in class for students without access).
2. Read the prompt carefully.
1. Review the description, learning goals, required tasks, and any word limits or formatting requirements.
2. Note the due date and how the extra credit will be factored into your course grade.
3. Decide whether to participate.
1. Consider your current workload and standing in the course.
2. Decide if you have the time and interest to complete the extra-credit work at a high quality.
4. Complete the extra-credit task.
1. Follow the specific steps and criteria given in the extra-credit prompt.
2. Make sure your work clearly meets all requirements so that it can be counted for extra credit.
5. Submit your extra-credit work.
1. Upload or send the assignment using the submission method specified in the prompt.
2. Confirm that your submission has been received.