Searching for Sorry

Date

04 OCT 2025 10 OCT 2025

Week

Week 3

Unit

Final Major Project

Brief

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

In short

Reframed the issue as the absence and degree of apology in shared theatre spaces.
Sketched two routes: a no-apologycard game and material cues to make remorse tangible.
Feedback: return to in-theatre interventions and choose education vs real-time behaviour shaping.

New Direction

In the early stage of the project, I conducted observations, surveys, and interviews with the aim of improving the usability of theatre seating and audience behaviour. I examined how disruptive actions—kicking, noise, chatting, and phone use—break immersion, and created several artefacts as design intervention tools to explore possible solutions.

This week, based on previous findings, I identified the core issue as a matter of ‘absence of apology’ and ‘degrees of apology’ and explored two potential design directions. I focused particularly on how the level of one’s apology could be made tangible and sharable.

Considered pivoting the direction towards “apology”, as the annoying situations ultimately came from people who didn’t feel sorry. Image Credit: Author

Absence of Apology

While prototyping, I revisited the act of apologising. I wondered whether discourteous behaviour in public spaces might stem from simply not knowing how to feel sorry. This led to the question: How can we gently signal someone who may not recognise their own impact? And what kinds of cues could evoke a sense of social guilt within shared environments?

To explore this, I drafted a workshop concept: a card game presenting everyday scenarios where the person who never apologises ultimately wins. I thought this test could help reveal how people negotiate social face and the psychology behind apologising.

Reference: Cards Against Humanity. Photo Credit: Tom Bullock(Wikipedia)

Degrees of Apology

Are the apologies we offer truly sincere? A hollow apology can feel even more discouraging than no apology at all. This pushed me to consider how the ‘degree’ of an apology might be experienced sensorially. I began exploring materials like sand and water to visualise or physically represent the weight or intensity of one’s remorse.

Designed a two-person workshop idea: comparing “how sorry” you feel in given situations. Image Credit: Author

Feedback & Reflection

Although I briefly explored alternative directions, the feedback strongly encouraged returning to the theatre as a real, tangible context. The theatre is a space rich with shared understanding and collective experience. While the card game and sand-based metaphors were interesting, they risked weakening the project’s persuasiveness. The feedback reaffirmed that, from a UX perspective, analysing real human behaviour occurring inside the theatre holds far greater value.

The card game or creative toolkit may still serve as useful warm-up or awareness tools. However, the project would benefit from shifting towards real-world applications—such as warning cards, social intervention devices, or behaviour-shaping mechanisms that could be used in situ.

Ultimately, the project must clarify whether it aims for an educational approach (raising awareness) or a real-time social intervention (shaping behaviour). Given the strength of the theatre context, this should not be overlooked.

This feedback made it clear that the project must be approached through methods that genuinely support its purpose. I had assumed that metaphorical approaches would naturally aid understanding and expansion, but in this case, they could instead dilute the project’s impact. Moving forward, I plan to develop the work by fully utilising the narrative strength and contextual richness of real situations within the theatre.

Reference

Arendt, H. 1958, The human condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Costanza-Chock, S. 2020, Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001
Goffman, E. 1967, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Anchor Books, New York.
Goffman, E. 1971, Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order, Basic Books, New York.
Monaghan, J. & Just, P. 2000, Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 34–52.
Tangney, J.P. & Dearing, R.L. 2002, Shame and guilt, Guilford Press, New York.
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. 2008, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.