My Role

End-to-end

UX Researcher and

UX/UI Designer

Timeline

9 weeks

Tools

Figma

FigJam

Adobe Illustrator

Adobe Photoshop

TEST PROJECT PROTOTYPE

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Scenity is a desktop web platform for film preparation that helps teams evaluate whether a specific scene can work in a candidate location before the shooting day.

The project addresses a practical gap in location approval: creative intent, scouting evidence, department constraints, and visual feasibility are often reviewed separately, making it difficult to understand whether a location can support the scene. The goal is to turn those inputs into a focused scene readiness review, without expanding the product into a full film production management platform.

PROJECT SUMMARY

The project follows a design thinking process. From a broad understanding of film production work to a focused prototype scope.

The process began by mapping how different film professionals prepare, share information, and evaluate constraints across production contexts. The Define phase then narrowed the findings into a specific opportunity around location evaluation before shooting. Ideation explored several possible directions before selecting the components needed for a contained prototype.

The final direction is organized around three connected responsibilities:

defining the scene intention
reviewing visual and technical feasibility
consolidating location evidence into comparable evaluation criteria

TEST PROJECT PROTOTYPE

My Role

End-to-end

UX Researcher and

UX/UI Designer

Timeline

9 weeks

Tools

Figma

FigJam

Adobe Illustrator

Adobe Photoshop

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Scenity is a desktop web platform for film preparation that helps teams evaluate whether a specific scene can work in a candidate location before the shooting day.

PROJECT SUMMARY

The project follows a design thinking process. From a broad understanding of film production work to a focused prototype scope.

The final direction is organized around three connected responsibilities:

defining the scene intention
reviewing visual and technical feasibility
consolidating location evidence into comparable evaluation criteria

TEST PROJECT PROTOTYPE

My Role

End-to-end

UX Researcher and

UX/UI Designer

Timeline

9 weeks

Tools

Figma

FigJam

Adobe Illustrator

Adobe Photoshop

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Scenity is a desktop web platform for film preparation that helps teams evaluate whether a specific scene can work in a candidate location before the shooting day.

PROJECT SUMMARY

The project follows a design thinking process. From a broad understanding of film production work to a focused prototype scope.

The final direction is organized around three connected responsibilities:

defining the scene intention
reviewing visual and technical feasibility
consolidating location evidence into comparable evaluation criteria

EMPHATIZE

DEFINE

IDEATE

PROTOTYPE

TEST

1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTEXT

Film production brings together creative, technical, logistical, and administrative work within the same process.

Before shooting, a project moves from the script into practical preparation through planning,

documents, departments, people, locations, time, and budget. Each role contributes from a different perspective, while the overall work depends on keeping these activities aligned as the project moves toward the set.

1.2 PROBLEM

During preparation, notes, checks, documents, and updates can remain spread across different departments, tools, and moments of the workflow. Even when the information exists, it can be difficult to understand what has been confirmed, what is still uncertain, and which issues may affect the shoot. This makes preparation more fragile, as critical problems can surface late or require additional checks when there is less room to adjust.

1.3 GOAL

The goal is to design an experience that makes film preparation easier to read before the shooting day. The system should help teams:

collect relevant preparation information in one structured context
understand what has been confirmed and what still needs attention
compare creative, technical, and production inputs more clearly
reduce late uncertainty before the work moves to set

1.4 DESIGN SOLUTION

Scenity is a desktop platform designed around one key pre shoot decision: assessing whether a candidate location can support a specific scene.

Instead of covering standard production tasks already handled by existing tools, such as script breakdowns, shooting schedules, or call sheets, Scenity focuses on location evaluation. It brings together creative brief, storyboard material, scouting content, technical checks, and production assessment in a shared review flow, helping directing, cinematography, and production evaluate the

location from their own responsibilities.

2. RESEARCH

2.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW

The research phase explored how film teams prepare scenes before shooting and coordinate decisions on set.

The goal was to understand how professionals plan activities, share information, coordinate departments, manage documents, and respond to preparation constraints across different production contexts.

Two complementary methods were used: competitor analysis to examine how current tools structure production workflows, and user interviews to understand how professionals manage decisions, communication, and preparation in real film production environments.

This phase aimed to identify recurring patterns, tensions, and unmet needs that could later guide the Define phase.

2.2 COMPETITOR ANALYSIS

The competitor analysis was conducted to understand how existing production tools structure film work across screenplay writing, script breakdowns, scheduling, budgeting, call sheets, production planning, and collaboration.

Four platforms were selected: Filmustage, Celtx, Final Draft, and StudioBinder.

They were chosen because each one represents a different position in the

production ecosystem, from writing and script management to operational coordination.

View Competitor Analysis

The analysis examined:

how each tool organizes production information
how responsibilities and permissions are represented
how updates move across the workflow
whether users can understand the practical impact of data, changes, and dependencies

This step was important because the project first needed a clear view of what the existing ecosystem already supports and where production information becomes difficult to connect to scene decisions, department responsibilities or scouting evidence.

Each platform was reviewed through a SWOT framework to compare strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats using the same analytical structure.

2.3 USER INTERVIEWS

Five semi structured interviews were conducted with film professionals from production, casting, directing, and cinematography. This method was chosen because the research needed to understand how film production works in practice across different roles, not only how workflows are represented in existing software. The interview guide combined shared questions with role specific prompts, allowing recurring patterns to be compared while leaving space to explore each participant’s responsibilities.

View Affinity Map

Core questions focused on workflow, communication, tools, stress points, information management, and differences between small and large productions.

Additional questions were adapted to each department.

Production and casting questions explored script breakdowns, cast and crew availability, documents, and last minute changes. Directing questions focused on storyboards, visual communication, directing notes, rehearsals, and on set changes. Cinematography questions explored script analysis, lighting, camera planning, technical preparation, references, and setup changes.

This structure helped move from a broad understanding of film production to more specific evidence about how different departments prepare, communicate, manage constraints and make decisions before and during shooting. All findings were synthesized through affinity mapping to identify recurring behaviours, workflow patterns, and systemic issues across departments.

2.4 RESEARCH INSIGHTS

The research synthesis combined findings from competitor analysis and user interviews.

The competitor analysis showed that existing tools already support important parts of production work, such as screenwriting, scheduling, budgeting, breakdowns, and call sheets. However, they often focus on organizing production data more than clarifying how that information supports practical decisions across roles, constraints, and workflow moments.

Key insights from the competitor analysis:

Existing tools structure production data, but often leave its practical role in decision-making unclear.
Role-based access and responsibility visibility are not always explicit.
The cross-functional impact of production changes is difficult to understand.
Dense or overloaded interfaces can reduce operational clarity.

The interviews added a practice-based view of how production work happens across departments. They showed that film production depends on a continuous translation between creative intent, technical preparation, documents, roles, communication, and on-set execution.

1. Production workflows stay consistent across different budgets and project types.

2. A script breakdown gives each department the information it needs to plan the production.

3. The shooting schedule builds on the script breakdown and evolves throughout production.

4. Managing administrative documents (contracts, insurance, purchase orders) is stressful.

5. Production managers balance creative vision against budget, time, and other constraints.

6. Cinematography shapes the film’s visual identity with direction, costume, and the art department.

7. Shooting efficiency depends on coordinated departmental prep.

8. During location scouting, department heads define each department’s needs.

9. Strong prep makes on-set changes easier to handle.

10. Technical prep relies on digital tools to test scene and location setups.

11. Storyboards explore options for lighting, camera, and subject dynamics within the location.

12. Character credibility depends on balancing the script, direction, and interpretive freedom.

13. Handling phone and radio communication at once is highly stressful.

14. On-set communication must be clear, fast, and accurate.

15. Passion helps crews endure pressure and feel they belong.

2.5 INSIGHT PRIORITIZATION

After synthesis, the 4 competitor insights and 15 interview insights were evaluated together through a Prioritization Matrix.

This method was used because the research produced findings from different sources and levels of evidence. The matrix made it possible to compare all insights through the same criteria instead of selecting the most interesting observations subjectively.

Each insight was scored from 1 to 5 across three criteria:

Production Relevance — how closely the insight relates to the way film production work is organized and carried out.

Evidence Strength — how strongly the insight is supported by interview findings, recurring patterns, role perspectives, and competitor analysis.

Design Opportunity — whether the insight can lead to a clear product challenge while remaining open to different solution directions.

View Prioritization Matrix

TOP FIVE INSIGHTS

After scoring the insights, the Top Five method was used to narrow the research material into the strongest design opportunities.

Only at this stage did a more specific opportunity emerge around scene and location preparation, where department needs, visual planning, technical checks, and production constraints intersect.

Existing tools structure production data, but often leave its practical role in decision-making unclear.
Production managers balance creative vision against budget, time, and other constraints.
During location scouting, department heads define each department’s needs.
Technical prep relies on digital tools to test scene and location setups.
Storyboards explore options for lighting, camera, and subject dynamics within the location.

These insights became the foundation for the Define phase, where they were translated into user needs, Point of View statements, and How Might We questions.

3. DEFINE

3.1 POINT OF VIEW STATEMENTS

The five prioritized insights were translated into Point of View statements to clarify the main user needs before ideation. Each statement follows the same structure: user, need, and reason. This helped keep the transition from research to design focused on the underlying problem behind each insight.

Film teams involved in preparation need production data to be tied to its practical meaning within the workflow, because unclear data cannot properly support real production decisions.
Production managers need to evaluate the director’s creative vision against budget, timing, and practical constraints, because ideas become difficult to execute when feasibility is unclear.
Department heads need to define and compare their requirements during location scouting, because each department evaluates the location through different technical, creative, and logistical needs.
Technical departments need reliable digital tools during location scouting, because they must assess precise technical requirements before the shoot.
Directing and cinematography teams need storyboards to explore the relationship between space, camera, and subjects within the location, because scene dynamics must be assessed before becoming shooting decisions.

3.2 PERSONAS

Personas were created as role based archetypes synthesized from the prioritized research insights.

The research highlighted two complementary perspectives: the Production Manager, who keeps creative intent, production constraints, timing, logistics, and department needs aligned, and the Director of Photography, who translates visual direction into practical decisions about space, camera, light, and movement.

Together, these personas helped keep design decisions grounded in two connected needs:

operational feasibility
visual technical preparation

View User Persona Maya

View User Persona Thomas

View User Persona Maya

View User Persona Thomas

3.3 HOW MIGHT WE QUESTIONS

The Point of View statements were translated into How Might We questions to turn user needs into open design challenges. This step was used to keep ideation focused on the prioritized problems while leaving room for multiple solution directions.

How might we help film teams understand the practical role of production data within the workflow
How might we help production managers evaluate creative ideas against budget, timing, and practical constraints?
How might we help department heads define and compare their requirements during location scouting?
How might we help technical departments assess precise technical requirements during location scouting?
How might we help directing and cinematography teams use storyboards to explore how space, camera and subjects interact within the location?

3.4 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

The Point of View statements and How Might We questions were translated into design principles to guide ideation. This step was used to turn user needs into evaluation criteria. Each principle defines how future ideas should behave, rather than which features should be designed.

1. Make information operational

Production information should show which scene decision it supports, which role owns it, and what preparation action depends on it.

2.Ground creativity in feasibility

Creative intent should remain visible, but it must be evaluated against budget, timing, location conditions, and practical constraints.

3.Preserve department specific perspectives

Different departments evaluate the same situation through different needs. The design should support comparison between perspectives without reducing them to a generic checklist.

4.Make technical evaluation reliable

Technical assessment should help teams evaluate space, equipment, camera, lighting, and movement before shooting, reducing guesswork during preparation.

5.Keep visual exploration flexible

Storyboards should support exploration of space, camera, and subject dynamics without turning early visual ideas into rigid shooting instructions. These principles were used as criteria during ideation, helping evaluate which ideas could support practical decisions while preserving creative and technical flexibility.

4. IDEATE

4.1 IDEATION APPROACH

The ideation phase started from the How Might We questions and the design principles defined in the previous phase. The goal was to explore multiple solution directions before selecting what should move forward into a realistic prototype scope. For this reason, the process combined divergent and convergent methods.

First, the Lotus Blossom Technique was used to generate ideas in a structured way. This method was chosen because each How Might We question needed to be expanded without losing its connection to the research findings. Then, the Four Categories Method was used to evaluate the first generation of ideas from different perspectives, not only feasibility. This helped compare safer, more valuable, more distinctive, and more ambitious directions. Finally, the selected directions were expanded through a second Lotus Blossom round and prioritized through MoSCoW. This helped define different levels of implementation, from core prototype elements to secondary or future opportunities.

Together, these methods created a controlled transition from broad exploration to a clearer prototype scope.

4.2 IDEA GENERATION

LOTUS BLOSSOM EXPANSION 1

The first ideation round used the Lotus Blossom Technique to expand each How Might We question into 8 possible solution directions. This method was chosen because the project needed structured divergence. Each group of ideas remained connected to a specific user need and design principle, while still allowing different directions to emerge.

The full first generation produced 40 ideas across 5 How Might We questions. In the presentation, one complete cluster is shown to make the method readable without fragmenting its structure.

How might we help production managers evaluate creative ideas against budget, timing and practical constraints?

Structured creative brief by scene, including goal, tone, references, and key needs.
Economic impact estimate for the creative idea, shown through impact levels.
Estimated prep and shooting time required by the idea.
Structured summary of logistical constraints, risks, and points to verify.
Feasibility criteria for comparing creative ideas with practical constraints.
Discussion space linked to each creative idea.
“What if” mode to explore changes in budget, timing, or constraints.
Feasibility indicator for the creative idea.

FOUR CATEGORIES SELECTION

The 40 ideas generated in the first Lotus Blossom round were evaluated through the Four Categories Method. This method was chosen because the selection needed to preserve different types of value, not only feasibility. Each category helped identify whether an idea could provide a practical foundation, improve a difficult user moment, express a distinctive product direction, or introduce a more ambitious opportunity.

View Four Categories Selection

Structured creative brief by scene, including goal, tone, references, and key needs

Selected as The Rational Choice because it provides the clearest starting point for later evaluation. Compared with other practical ideas, such as feasibility indicators or contextual data support, this direction creates a stronger foundation: before teams can assess constraints, locations, technical needs, or storyboard options, they need a shared understanding of what the scene is trying to achieve.

2

Candidate location comparison based on department feedback

Selected as The Most Likely to Delight because it turns a fragmented moment into a clearer decision making process. Other ideas, such as shared comments or predefined location checks, support collaboration but remain more isolated. This direction is stronger because it helps teams compare candidate locations through department evidence.

3

Technical workspace for measurements, setup checks, and other location notes

Selected as The Darling because it best expresses the emerging identity of the product: connecting location evaluation with technical preparation. More specific ideas, such as camera setup testing or equipment compatibility checks, were useful but narrower. This direction can contain those needs while remaining flexible enough to support different technical roles

4

The system compares storyboard frames with location photos to flag issues

Selected as The Long Shot because it is the most ambitious and distinctive opportunity. Other storyboard ideas, such as shared comments or camera based variations, improve existing planning activities. This direction goes further by connecting visual intention with real location evidence, making it more original while still connected to the research findings.

LOTUS BLOSSOM EXPANSION 2

After the Four Categories Method, the four selected directions were expanded through a second Lotus Blossom round. This step was used to move from broad directions to more concrete behaviors, interactions, and possible prototype components. Each selected direction generated 8 additional ideas, producing 32 ideas in total. The two complete clusters shown in this section were selected to make the second expansion readable while preserving the structure of the method. They show how selected directions began to develop into more concrete behaviours and interaction possibilities, without presenting them yet as prioritized features.

Structured creative brief by scene, including goal, tone, references, and key needs.

1. The director defines what the script does not state explicitly: atmosphere, acting intention, and communication goals.

2.The cinematographer reviews the director’s brief and adds an initial visual interpretation of the scene.

3.Dedicated reference library for collecting, organizing, and managing films, scenes, images, and narrative references.

4.The cinematographer collects visual references to define atmosphere and composition.

5.A guided questionnaire helps the director define the scene more clearly.

6.The assistant director compares the creative description, script scene, and breakdown to identify critical issues.

7. The director marks creative elements as essential, adaptable, or expendable.

8.Department heads review the creative brief and add issues or observations from their own perspective.

The system compares storyboard frames with location photos to flag issues.

1. Fast storyboard creation through prompts and drag-and-drop, designed for comparison with location photos.

2.Shot-by-shot archive for organizing storyboard frames and matching location photos.

3.Automatic storyboard generation from predefined shot parameters filled in by the user, ready for location comparison.

4.AI-generated ideal photo from the storyboard, later compared with real location photos.

5.Automatic conversion of hand-drawn sketches into clean, comparable digital storyboards.

6.Reference gallery of film scenes, paintings, and visual sources to support storyboard composition and location comparison.

7. Storyboard-guided photo capture, with visual guides helping users take aligned location photos for a later photo–storyboard overlay.

8.Storyboard-location comparison report with predefined parameters and numerical scores to highlight issues.

MOSCOW PRIORITIZATION

The 32 ideas generated in the second Lotus Blossom round were prioritized using the MoSCoW method. This method was chosen because the ideation phase had moved from exploration to scope definition. At this stage, the goal was no longer to generate more options, but to decide which ideas were essential for a coherent prototype and which should remain secondary, future, or outside the current version. Ideas were categorized by four criteria: connection to the core workflow, evidence from research, feasibility within the prototype, and risk of expanding the product beyond its intended scope.

View MoSCoW Prioritization

Must Have ideas define the minimum coherent scene readiness experience. They support scene definition, candidate location review, visual and technical feasibility, guided photo capture, storyboard comparison, and location scoring.

Should Have ideas add collaboration, role clarity, technical notes, setup comparison, storyboard organization, and supporting creation tools without becoming the center of the prototype.

Could Have ideas remain valuable extensions, but are not required to demonstrate the core system logic.

Won’t Have ideas were excluded because they were too complex, too close to other selected ideas, or likely to shift the product toward advanced automation or a broader production platform.

This prioritization clarified which ideas should shape the prototype while keeping the product focused and controlled.

4.3 FINAL DIRECTION

After ideation and prioritization, the project direction became focused on one critical decision: understanding whether a specific scene can become shoot ready in a candidate location. The selected direction does not aim to manage the entire film production workflow. It concentrates on the point where creative intent, department requirements, technical evidence, storyboard exploration, and production constraints need to be compared before shooting. Three design decisions define this direction.

Scene based evaluation

The system starts from the scene cause location, technical checks, storyboard frames, and department requirements only become meaningful when evaluated against what the scene needs to achieve.

Decision support, not decision automation

The system does not choose the location for the team. It organizes scouting evidence, highlights feasibility issues, and supports location approval discussions.

Focused product scope

The product remains a contained microsystem. It supports evaluation before shooting around scene readiness and location feasibility, without expanding into a full production management platform.

This direction creates the foundation for the next phase, where the selected ideas are translated into information architecture, user flows, and prototype structure.

5. STRUCTURE

5.1 INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE

The information architecture translates the selected direction into a scene based structure. The scene becomes the main organizing unit because creative intent, storyboard material, department input, technical evidence, location photos, and candidate locations need to be evaluated against the same scene objective.

The structure follows four main levels:

Project

The project workspace gives access to the script and its scenes.

Scene

Each scene connects the creative brief, storyboard setup, department input, and candidate locations.

Candidate location

Each location has its own profile, where scouting evidence is collected, organized, and reviewed.

Evidence layers

Storyboard frames, location photos, department comments, technical notes, 3D checks, and scoring are organized around the selected scene and location.

Role based access works as a structural rule across the system. All users can understand the project context, but available actions change according to each role’s responsibility, allowing different departments to contribute without losing ownership of their decisions.

This architecture keeps the experience focused on shoot preparation and location approval. It helps teams keep evidence connected, comparable, and useful for deciding whether a scene can work in a specific location, without expanding the product into a full production management platform.

5.2 SITEMAP

The sitemap was created to clarify how the product structure should be organized before defining user flows and wireframes.

Since the experience combines role responsibilities, scene materials, scouting evidence, and location evaluation data, the sitemap separates navigable pages, main content areas, and specific data.

This distinction helped define what belongs to the structure, what belongs inside each page, and what should later become part of task based flows.

The main structural decision was to keep scene related areas and location evaluation areas clearly separated. Creative brief, department notes, DoP visual notes, storyboard, and locations are connected to the selected scene, while photo capture, photo review, technical workspace and scoring are organized under the selected location.

View Sitemap

5.3 USER FLOWS

The user flows were created to show how different roles move through the same scene and location structure to complete their responsibilities. Because the product uses role based access, the flows were not designed around a generic user. Each flow follows one professional role and one core objective, while still using the shared scene and location evaluation structure defined in the sitemap.

Creative Direction and Location Selection, Director

Shows how the director defines the creative direction of a scene, prepares storyboard material, reviews location evidence, and selects the final location.

Visual Feasibility Review, DoP

Shows how the Director of Photography evaluates whether a location can support the visual and technical needs of the scene, using storyboard material, photo evidence, comparison scores, and the 3D model.

Location Evaluation, Production Manager

Shows how the Production Manager turns scouting evidence into operational location scores for the selected candidate location. The scoring does not replace department-specific judgement; it organizes it into comparable operational criteria for the final location decision.

These flows were selected because they cover the main responsibilities needed to move from scene definition to location decision: creative direction, visual technical feasibility, and operational evaluation.

5.4 STRUCTURAL RATIONALE

The structure was organized around the main pattern that emerged from research: production teams do not only need information to be stored, they need it to remain connected to the decision it supports. For this reason, the architecture separates scene preparation from location evaluation.

Scene-level areas preserve the creative and role-based context needed before the scout, while location-level areas collect evidence about how that intention works in a real space. The structure also separates evidence from evaluation. Photos, department head comments, technical pins, storyboard comparison scores, and the 3D model document scouting evidence. Location scoring turns those observations into comparable criteria.

This rationale will guide the wireframes by giving each screen a specific production role: define creative intent, collect scouting evidence, review visual feasibility, or support location approval. This makes the structure closer to a scene-readiness review than to a generic project-management workspace: each screen has a role in moving from creative intent to location evidence, from technical feasibility to final approval.

6. DESIGN

6.1 WIREFRAMES

The wireframes were used to define how the product structure should behave before moving into visual design. The focus was on making the relationship between role, scene, candidate location, and evaluation tools clear enough to support the main prototype flows.

Access

The Access screen defines the role based entry point. Users do not enter the platform as generic users; they access the project through a specific production responsibility, which changes what they can review, add, or evaluate.

Creative Project Workspace

The workspace makes the scene the main working unit. From this point, users can read the script, select a scene, and access the preparation areas connected to that scene, such as creative brief, storyboard material, department notes, and candidate locations.

Access

Creative Project Workspace

Location Profile

The Location Profile acts as the evaluation hub for a selected candidate location. It brings together the location overview, incompatible requirements, guided photo capture, photo review, technical workspace, and location scoring, keeping evidence and evaluation connected in one place.

Technical Workspace

The Technical Workspace explores the most distinctive part of the system: testing whether the location can support the visual and spatial setup of the scene. By placing camera, lights, actors, tracks, vehicles, and other elements inside a 3D location model, the DoP can review framing, movement, equipment position, and setup limits before the shoot.

Location Profile

Technical Workspace

Location Profile

Technical Workspace

Access

Creative Project Workspace

6.2 UI SYSTEM

The UI system was designed to keep production information readable across dense, role based screens.

Since the product combines script content, scene resources, location evidence, technical tools, and scoring, the interface prioritizes hierarchy, separation of content areas, and clear action states over decorative complexity.

The main pattern is a workspace layout with persistent project context, role identity, content lists, and task specific panels. Cards are used to organize scenes, locations, tools, comments, and evidence status, while tables and scoring controls support comparison and evaluation. Primary actions are kept visible but limited, so each screen guides users toward one main task: access the project, review scene material, open a candidate location, capture evidence, test a technical setup, or save an evaluation.

Reusable components include role cards, scene lists, resource cards, location cards, status labels, comment blocks, scoring scales, action buttons, and technical control panels.

Together, they create a consistent system where each role can understand what information is available, what still needs input, and which action can move the preparation forward.

6.3 HIGH-FIDELITY DESIGN

The high fidelity design translates the product structure into a working interface for scene and location evaluation.

The goal was not to create a visually expressive film platform, but to make dense production information readable, comparable, and actionable across different responsibilities.

The final screens keep the same logic defined in the wireframes: users enter through their role, work from a selected scene, then move into the candidate location where evidence, technical checks, and scoring are reviewed

Access

The Access screen introduces the role based structure of the product. Each role card explains what the user can do in the system, making responsibility part of the interface from the first interaction.

Creative Project Workspace

The workspace gives users a clear project and scene context. The script remains visible, while the scene resources show which preparation areas already contain content and which still need input.

Access

Creative Project Workspace

The workspace gives users a clear project and scene context. The script remains visible, while the scene resources show which preparation areas already contain content and which still need input.

Access

Creative Project Workspace

The workspace gives users a clear project and scene context. The script remains visible, while the scene resources show which preparation areas already contain content and which still need input.

Location Profile

The Location Profile becomes the main evaluation hub. It combines the location summary, incompatible requirements, and access to the main evaluation tools, keeping all location related material connected to the selected scene.

Technical Workspace

The Technical Workspace applies the most specific visual and technical layer of the product. It allows the DoP to test camera, light, actor, equipment, and movement positions inside the location model before the shoot.

Location Profile

Technical Workspace

Location Profile

Technical Workspace

6.4 PROTOTYPE

The interactive prototype represents the core scene and location evaluation experience through three main paths.

The Director flow focuses on creative direction and location selection. The user reviews the scene, defines or checks the creative brief, manages storyboard material, reviews candidate locations, and selects the final location.

The Director of Photography flow focuses on visual feasibility. The user reviews the creative brief and storyboard, opens a candidate location, tests the scene setup in the technical workspace, reviews photo evidence, and submits storyboard comparison scores.

The Production Manager flow focuses on location evaluation. The user reviews the scene and selected location, checks incompatible requirements, captures guided location photos, adds photo comments, and assigns location scores.

The prototype is mainly desktop based. The only mobile moment appears inside Guided Photo Capture, where the user opens the camera to capture storyboard aligned location evidence during the scout.

7. TESTING

7.1 TEST SETUP

The high-fidelity prototype was tested in five moderated remote sessions with film and video professionals whose backgrounds included cinematography, directing, production and digital media.

Each session took place on Google Meet. Participants shared their screens and were asked to think aloud as they worked through the experience.

The test covered three connected role-based workflows. As the Director, participants reviewed the scene, completed the Creative Brief, created a storyboard, and selected a location. As the Director of Photography, they reviewed the creative material, used the Technical Workspace, and compared storyboard frames with location photos. As the Production Manager, they reviewed location constraints, captured missing photos, added department feedback, and completed the location scoring. The aim was not to validate each role as a standalone experience. It was to assess whether Scenity could support a clear progression from creative intent to the technical and production review of a location.

The analysis focused on task completion, hesitation, requests for help, and participants’ understanding of how scenes, locations, photographic evidence, and department input were connected.

7.2 WHAT WORKED

All five participants completed the three workflows, although some needed limited moderator support. Most difficulties involved individual interaction cues, labels, or content groupings rather than the overall structure of the product.

The role-based model was generally easy to understand. Participants recognised that the Creative Brief, storyboard, technical setup, location photos, constraints, and scoring represented different perspectives on the same location decision.

Entering the project, moving between scenes, reviewing the script, and exploring candidate locations were generally straightforward. Participants also understood the purpose of the Technical Workspace, the required location photos, and the final evaluation once they reached the relevant sections.

Overall, the test supported the core product concept. The main opportunities were to make key interactions easier to discover and to create clearer distinctions between closely related content.

7.3 KEY FINDINGS

1.The Creative Brief drag-and-drop interaction was easy to miss

Several participants clicked the item, expected to upload a file, or paused before realising it had to be dragged. The Creative Brief itself made sense, but the placement of the draggable item did not clearly signal either the interaction or its connection to the drop area.

2.Guided Photo Capture and Location Photo Review blurred two different stages

Location photos appeared in three contexts: as a general gallery in the Location Profile, as a set of required shots in Guided Photo Capture, and as evidence for review in Location Photo Review. The existing names, descriptions, and status labels did not clearly separate browsing, capturing and reviewing. This led some participants to misunderstand either the purpose of a screen or the status of the photos shown within it.

3.Notes and Department Head Comments were not clearly differentiated

Notes represented technical annotations attached to specific points in a photograph. Department Head Comments provided broader feedback on the image from individual department leads. Because the two content types appeared close together and “Notes” was too generic, some participants treated them as equivalent. The control for adding a Department Head Comment was also difficult to find.

4.Incompatible Requirements were easy to overlook

The Location Profile contains several information blocks and entry points. Some participants missed the section entirely, while others misunderstood what it represented. This reflected a broader issue on information-dense screens: participants focused on cards and controls, while section headings did not provide enough visual guidance.

7.4 DESIGN ITERATIONS

The iterations focused on areas where actions, content types, and information hierarchy were not clear enough.

The Creative Brief drag-and-drop was repositioned to make the interaction easier to discover. The two photography stages were separated more clearly by renaming Guided Photo Capture as Required

Photos and Location Photo Review as Photo Evidence Review, while improving their icons, descriptions, and photo-status labels.

Point-specific annotations were renamed Technical Pins and visually separated from Department Head Comments. Incompatible Requirements became Location Constraints, and section headings were given greater emphasis across information-dense screens. A small number of labels and redundant actions were also simplified without changing the underlying workflows.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 RESULT

Scenity is centred on scene readiness: determining whether a location can support the creative, technical, and production needs of a specific scene before the shoot.

The final prototype brings the Creative Brief, storyboard, candidate locations, technical setup, Required Photos, Photo Evidence Review, Technical Pins, Department Head Comments, Location Constraints and scoring into one connected decision-making process.

Testing showed that the overall structure and role-based workflow were understandable. The core concept did not need to be redesigned. Instead, the iterations clarified where the interface needed to communicate an action more directly, distinguish between different uses of photography, and separate technical evidence from department feedback.

Scenity therefore moves beyond storing scouting material. It brings creative intent, spatial evidence, technical requirements, and production constraints into a shared location review before the team reaches the set.

8.2 FUTURE IMPACT

Future development should deepen Scenity’s scene-readiness workflow rather than turn it into a general production management platform.

The Technical Workspace could connect mobile with camera, lens, and sensor settings. Location data could include sun position and weather conditions, while department comments could support direct tagging of the people responsible for reviewing or resolving an issue. These additions would make it easier to compare creative intent with technical feasibility and real location conditions, while keeping Scenity focused on preparing a scene for production.

TEST PROJECT PROTOTYPE