AudienceLocker: A Device for Theatre Misbehaviour

Date

11 OCT 2025 17 OCT 2025

Week

Week 4

Unit

Final Major Project

Brief

Design an intervention that reshapes user-to-user interaction in public spaces.

In short

Combined three theatre misbehaviours into a satirical 3-in-1 device, AudienceLocker.
Built Prototype version 2 and filmed a mock-ad video to show how it blocks chatting, phone use, and leaning.
Next: real-user testing, high-fi material exploration, and a location/fandom-based series expansion.

Back to the Theatre

I returned to the three prototypes I had previously created. There was a faint sense of pressure about how to push the designs further—how to make them more extreme and more absurd. The goal for this stage was to develop an updated prototype and present it through a video situated in the real context of a theatre.

I recalled the moments that had genuinely irritated me in theatres: Please be quiet… Don’t use your phone… Don’t block my view… What if these three situations could be combined into a single device? This led to the idea of expanding the concept into a 3-in-1 device.

Early sketches for the 3-in-1 device. Image Credit: Author

Sketch idea: a mobile phone booth to stop someone making loud calls on the bus. Image Credit: Author

Inspiration

After testing the initial device, I explored several additional references. The ruffle collar was elegant and refined, yet somewhat ridiculous when viewed through a contemporary lens. Its resemblance to a dog’s protective collar made it even more ironic. I also referenced several punitive collars used historically to discipline those who misbehaved.

The ruff collar emerged in the 16th century and remained in use into the 17th century, becoming larger and more elaborate. Image credit: The Wallace Collection

Recovery collar for dogs Photo credit: Kruuse

A neck restraint used on prisoners in Korea Image credit: Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

Prototype Version 2

The materials remained the same: a wire hanger and thick paper. I tested the size directly on the body and folded the paper in a zigzag pattern to create tension before attaching it to the wire frame.

Decided to merge the three devices into a single device. Photo Credit: Author

Built the frame (skeleton) using a wire hanger. Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Folded paper to create tension, then slotted and fixed it into the frame. Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

Functionally, this version performs all three intended behaviours. The collar’s breadth physically prevents conversation with neighbouring audience members, while the section covering the lower torso blocks covert phone use. The entire frame is fixed to the seat, limiting the user’s ability to lean forward or move excessively.

The collar prevents phone use in the theatre. Photo Credit: Author

The uncomfortable collar prevents whispering to the person next to you. Photo Credit: Author

Low-fidelity prototypes for the theatre version. Photo Credit: Author

For the video, I initially wanted to use an actual theatre and performers, but at the mid-point stage, conveying the core concept felt sufficient. I therefore filmed the scenario in the university lecture theatre, playing multiple roles myself.

Reference: Jony Ive's Apple promotional films. Video Credit: Apple

Reference: Samsung’s design films. Video Credit: Samsung

Reference: Dyson’s advertisements. Video Credit: Dyson

Used mock-ad references to communicate context through video. Image Credit: Author

AudienceLocker Mid-Point Presentation Video. Video Credit: Author

Feedback & Reflection

In terms of communication, the mock advertising style was well received. I was told that the simple layering technique was effective, and that borrowing the tone of a tech company advertisement added a strong satirical quality.

Contextually, I was encouraged to test the device with real participants and in a range of different environments. For further iterations across different locations, it was suggested that I could continue using the same ideation approach or apply a simplified AEIOU framework.

The feedback on concept expansion was particularly helpful. There was a suggestion to push the prototype into a larger, stranger, more beautiful, elegant, and exaggerated high-fidelity form. Another idea was to explore what might happen if specific fandoms—anime fans, musical fans, horror fans—designed their own versions. A shared base frame with location- or situation-specific add-ons was proposed as another possible direction.

Wore the prototype to check whether the intended functions worked as planned. Photo Credit: Aoqi

The collar can partially block the viewing angle for phone use in auditorium seats. Photo Credit: Aoqi

Found improvements through user testing. Photo Credit: Author

Photo Credit: Author

When asked about materials for a high-fidelity build, I realised I had not yet given it serious thought. The overall difficulty would vary depending on my familiarity with the chosen materials, so the advice was to start by deciding what I actually want to achieve, and then seek support during the making process.

So what do you really want to do with this project?

I want the person wearing it to feel embarrassed or self-conscious.

Then what else is needed for that effect, and what constraints might shape the design?

After the mid-point, the next tasks became clear: a material exploration for the high-fidelity prototype, and a series expansion based on different locations and situations. These two strands will guide the direction of the next phase.

In a feedback tutorial with Wan and Al. Photo Credit: Author

Mid-point done. Photo Credit: Author

Reference

Baudrillard, J. 1998, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, SAGE Publications, London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526401502
Bakhtin, M.M. 1984, Rabelais and His World, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Griffin, D. 1994, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Winner, L. 1980, ‘Do artifacts have politics?’, Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 121–136. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652

More Stories

Sorry Not Sorry Week 3

Sorry Not Sorry Week 5

Dahoon Lee