UX DESIGNER
CASE STUDY
WONDERLAND
BY EPIC IMMERSIVE
An Interactive Experience
THE DESIGN PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
A Note on Designing Immersive/ Interactive Theater:
In an immersive experience, the audience has a role within the story. For example, they can talk to/ interact (in world) with the characters of the story, and sometimes can even change the outcome of events. At Epic Immersive, UX design processes were used to great success to create guest centered experiences and interactions. This case study focuses on the user experience design process and not the narrative, artistic creative process: In other words: How we built the structures of both the experience itself and the interactions within the experience, for the user. The characters and the narrative ( story ) were created simultaneously and integrated into this structure.
WONDERLAND
CASE STUDY
An audience centered, interactive immersive experience based on Alice in Wonderland, created using UX design processes as the framework to build the experience
PRODUCT: WONDERLAND, an immersive and interactive show
DURATION: 1 month total ( for all design iterations) Total length of run: multiple, sold out extended runs, both of the original version, subsequent versions with narrative variations and finally, a sequel over the course of 4 years.
Product: WONDERLAND
THE PROBLEM: Guests need a unique, fun, and innovative theatrical experience, that is highly interactive, that allows them to be an actual character in the story, and is based on story well known in popular culture around the world
THE GOAL: To create a fun, transformative, popular live event, that centers the audience, and has enough audience agency and interaction to make it unique, whether for a private corporate event, or a public audience.
My Role
Roles & Responsibilities through all Versions and Iterations of WONDERLAND
ROLE: Experience Designer/ Producer/ Writer/ Performer/ UX design (guest interactions) (with creative team) original concept/ original story concept for second iteration, ideation over the course of multiple collaborative design sprints as part of a creative team, user journey maps, user testing, beta testing, incorporating feedback, adapting experience for a ticketed audience, created original story concept for ticketed audience, subsequent adapting (multiple times) and expanding experience (new interactions) again for a ticketed audience.
WONDERLAND
Version 1
SYNOPSIS & FEEDBACK FROM THE FIRST ITERATION
WONDERLAND
VERSION 1
Epic immersive was approached to create a private corporate theatrical experience for an international audience, for a Silicon Valley Social Media Company. It needed to be special, unique, fun, within certain scheduling parameters, heavy on interaction and lighter on narrative.
RESEARCH
User Research
Research, User Research and Persona Creation, Problem Statements, Journey Maps
RESEARCH: Reading the source material: Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass
GUEST PERSONA: International audience, on a strict scheduling timeline, who possibly have never taken part in an immersive theater show, who spoke many different languages.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Guests need a special, bespoke, time- conscious highly interactive immersive experience designed for an international audience
JOURNEY MAP: The interactions and experiences created need to be easily understandable, with limited instructions to the guests, but still fun and consistent with the story
THE DESIGN PROCESS
The Design Process
Synopsis:
The idea of doing Alice and Wonderland was conceived by myself and the CEO of Epic, and then the design process took place over two design sprints with the entire creative design/writing team.
IDEATION: Two design sprints, with the design team of 12 creators (artists, experience designers, actors, writers, improvisors) Ideating on the best version on the show, the amount of experiences to have, what characters we should use, what the most popular scenes/ scenarios from the source material were.
EXPERIENCE DESIGN: For this version we relied heavily on the source material and picked the most recognizable characters and scenarios to build the experience off of. This was both to work within the design parameters (scheduling parameters, and to make sure the guests could participate in the most popular, recognizable experiences of the story). For example: have the audience paint the roses red, tea party with the Mad Hatter etc.
PROBLEM SOLVING: We figured out how to streamline the interactions to make it easier and more fun for the audience to participate. We adapted the size of audience groups so the show could be performed multiple times and to make sure the interactions were more personal and clear
USER JOURNEY: The space this event took place in was a space specially designed for immersive events ( it had a slide and tunnels) and was actually very easy to get lost in, so we designed a very straightforward audience path, made sure there was a facilitator in each room to provide instructions as to the next part of the path.The interactions that the audience participated in, also became more complicated the longer they were in the story, and the more familiar they became with the space and being in the event.
WONDERLAND
Version 1
EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS
This bespoke version was performed for a total audience of under 100 people, it was internally beta -tested before the performance, and instructions the audience were clarified because of feedback from the beta test.
Experience & Observations
Takeaways
SYNOPSIS: This prototype was run for one day for small groups of people. The audience really enjoyed it, we had only positive feedback, and there were some useful takeaways
OBSERVATIONS: Some interactions needed more explanation, and what the experience was itself needed more clarification ( this experience didn't have a house manager to explain exactly what immersive theater is). This was an internal observation, and this clarification is frequently needed in immersive theater.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK
FOOD: This experience featured food and drink. Guests were not interested in eating, although drinking was fine.
STORY COMPLEXITY/ RIGID USER PATHWAY STRUCTURE: It would have worked just as well to have less of the Wonderland story and less structure because the guests were really into interacting and playing games with the performers and exploring the world like in a free roam party.
WHAT WORKED
Everything else. The amount and the quality of interactions were good and the guests had a good time.
WONDERLAND
Version 2
THE SECOND ITERATION OF WONDERLAND
This version of Wonderland was designed for a ticketed audience that experienced the show in small groups. It was built on some of the interaction / UX learnings from Version 1, but was a completely different show creatively. Because it was going to be ticketed, it was decided that the story called for more narrative, and more story. It was originally projected to have a limited run of only one month, before both a revival, and a different experienced opened.
WONDERLAND
VERSION 2
PROBLEM: We needed to build an even more complex show, both narratively and interactively, utilizing UX learnings from the first experience, but building a different show and story on top that that to have a broader appeal for a ticketed audience. The run would be limited to one month.
GOAL: To take a bespoke corporate event and turn it into a highly interactive narrative show, for a broad ticketed adult audience and have that show be financially, and creatively successful, and designed clearly and empathetically from a UX perspective.
My Role
Roles & Responsibilities through all Versions and Iterations of WONDERLAND
ROLES: Experience Designer/ Producer/ Writer/ Performer/
Guest (UX) design ( with creative team) original concept/ original story concept for second iteration, ideation over the course of multiple highly collaborative design sprints as part of a creative team, user journey maps, user testing, beta testing, incorporating feedback, adapting experience for a ticketed audience, created original story concept for ticketed audience, subsequent adapting and expanding experience again for a ticketed audience.
RESEARCH
Research
Additional research we did for this version of the experience
For this version of the experience we conducted research on other versions of Alice in Wonderland and what interactions users had, re-examined personas we conducted informal competitive audits, and addressed possible pain points
User Research
Research and Personas
RESEARCH: For this version of the experience there was internal research done on the creative team's experiences at Alice themed events, a check in about interactions had worked in the first version that we wanted to keep/ elaborate on, and what interactions we wanted to cut, and what interactions from the original source material we wanted to create.
USER RESEARCH & PERSONAS: The guests would be mainly from the Epic mailing list, which was cosmopolitan, diverse, artistic, innovative, Bay Area residents, that were creative, tech savvy, community driven, and already familiar with the tenets of immersive theater. It was assumed in designing this experience that guests might bring friends unfamiliar with immersive/ interactive experiences, and that marketing would also possibly bring in a new audience, so instructions/ interactions needed to be designed with that in mind.
Comparative Audit
Informal Audit
AUDIT: For this version of the experience there was an informal comparative audit done on other versions of Alice in Wonderland ( which was at the time a very popular immersive topic) We looked at experiences both in the UK and USA. The experience in the UK was larger and more narrative based. The experiences in the US were more based around a particular part of Wonderland- For example, visiting The Mad Hatter's Tea Party
Pain Points
Learnings from the First Iteration
PAIN POINTS:
AUDIENCE SIZE: in the first iteration, the guests did their interactions with the actors ( and the story) in groups. This made it difficult for audience members to have the quality of interactions they wanted, and the individual attention they desired
INTERACTIONS WITH FOOD: Audience members needed more clarity around what they were eating/ drinking
THE DESIGN PROCESS
The Design Process
Synopsis
For this version we held more ideation sessions and designed new experiences, we solved problems that had come up in the first iteration and made adjustments to the user journey through the experience.
Ideation
Design Sprints
SPRINTS and IDEATION:
A week long design sprint with a creative team of 12 designers ( same team from Version 1) that involved ideation, user journey maps and refinement, and incorporated the lessons from Version 1. The design sprint was in person and was a combo of ideation exercises, and brainstorming. The ideas were written down, combined with Version 1and included a crowd sourced doc that everyone continually contributed to and refined. Scripting happened concurrently. It was a highly collaborative process.
Experience design
Synopsis
We elaborated on prior research, added instructions before the show for the audience, we changed the size of the audience groupings, and added and eliminated characters and experiences
IN WORLD EXPERIENCES INCLUDED:
Making imaginary names and personas for being in world
Drinking tea
Playing games
Answering riddles
Singing in groups
Many of the interactions could change the outcome or the nature of the scene, but no audience interaction was able to change the narrative arc or the outcome of the experience.
CHARACTERS: We added characters not in either of the books and cut some of the underdeveloped characters from the original version of the show.
OUT OF WORLD INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED:
What immersive theater and it parameters are, the parameters for interacting with actors, what they actually were allowed to do
Problem Solving
Solutions to Pain Points
PROBLEM: Audience group size was adjusted to have fewer people to allow for more involved interactions
PROBLEM: We cut the interaction with food but we kept in drinking ( tea and other beverages) and included clear instructions in the preshow talk and in each scene with drinking
PROBLEM: Needing a different type of group interaction, so we added music and group singing
User Journey
From Arrival Through to the End of the Experience
USER PATH: We did a breakdown of the user's journey from the email providing instructions, to preshow instructions, through their path through the show and any and all experiences/ interactions they had, the timing of each interaction, then to exiting the experience and going home. We problem solved any additional pain points that we thought might come up, in preparation for the beta test
BETA TESTING
Refining the Design
Beta Testing
TESTING:The full show (including interactions) tested with 4 groups of guests. The groups were made up of a mix of industry professionals and regular audience members.
Key Takeaways & Adjustments
Timings and Pathways
TAKEAWAYS: The pathways and interactions worked well, the smaller groupings also went well. The timing of interactions, and keeping the audience on the designed path and through the experience in a timely manner proved challenging. We made some adjustments to the instructions.
WONDERLAND LAUNCH
Version 2
The show was launched for a sold out audience, and 8 shows ran that first weekend to sold out crowds.
WONDERLAND
VERSION 2 Launch/ Feedback
LAUNCH: It went very well, the audiences really enjoyed it. The timing was worked out, but proved to be something we needed to really pay attention too, otherwise interactions and experiences were thrown off.
FEEDBACK: Very positive from the beginning. The experience really resonated with people, and we had interest from investors after the second performance.
Accessibility
Custom Modifications
During the run of this show it was modified on a show- by- show basis to be more accessible to guests with a hearing imparement and guests with low vision. This included modifying some of the interactions, instructions and audience size (to accommodate aides) and providing flashlights for guests with low vision for scenes that were darker.
WONDERLAND RUN
VERSION 2
This version of WONDERLAND ran for 6 sold out months. It was extended 3 times and saw hundreds of audience members attend. It was profitable, and by the end of the first day of performance it had attracted investors. This version, and expanded, adapted versions were run multiple times over the subsequent 4 years, always to sold out crowds and often to repeated audiences
SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS/THEATRICAL RUNS & TAKEAWAYS
Subsequent Runs and Response
Extensions/ Subsequent Runs and responses
This show was extended many times and was adapted to add more story, interaction and characters, it spawned a sequel and several modified versions. During the run of each show, the existing story and experiences were also continually refined and perfected.
BETWEEN TWO WORLDS
A Wonderland Story
This was an expanded version of Version 2. We added more characters, interactions and another original song, it also enjoyed a sold out extended run for hundreds of audience members.
A CARNIVAL OF MEMORIES
A Wonderland Story
SPIN- OFF STORY: Highly interactive spin off of the second version of WONDERLAND, that was performed in repertory with BETWEEN TWO WORLDS. It was designed to accommodate a larger audience. This show was also seen by hundreds of audience members and enjoyed an extension.
WONDERLAND
in Underland
Underland Adaption
This was this was the original Version 2 of Wonderland that was adapted for Epic's Underland Incubator Program. It was adapted to focus on a gender inclusive storyline and enjoyed multiple sold out extensions.
Takeaways
Goals, Achievements & Reflections
With WONDERLAND we hit and far exceeded all of our goals for this experience.
GOAL: 75% sold out one month run.
ACHIEVEMENT: Selling out multiple extended runs for hundreds of audience members over the course of 4 years.
ACHIEVEMENT:creating a story that resonated so strongly with guests that it spun a spin off, and brought in new and repeat audience members
ACHIEVEMENT: A financially successful show, that attracted interest from investors
ACHIEVEMENT: Increased the mailing list, and ticket buyers for future Epic shows
ACHIEVEMENT: Became the most popular answer when asked how people knew Epic immersive.
ACHIEVEMENT: It was transformative for audience members - I heard feedback that the message of self actualization resonated so much with the audience that people left jobs, moved to new cities and pursued their goals.
REFLECTIONS: Creating from a place of joy and empathy with an incredibly talented team of collaborators, constantly refining the design, and listening to audience feedback can lead to amazing results.
