BirdLiving is a prototype aimed at solving problems with small sedentary birds during the winter. While some birds migrate to warmer climates in the winter, sedentary birds struggle during the winter relating to protection and warmth. BirdLiving offers a place for small sedentary birds to recuperate from the cold and also provide protection against larger predators.
October 2023 – January 2025
(4 months)
Research, Prototyping, Programmer
FigJam, Arduino, Physical Prototyping
We followed a structured design thinking process to ensure that every decision was supported by user research and feedback.
User Interviews, Literature review
Affinity diagram, Personas
Brainstorming, sketches
Prototypes, Arduino simulator
Functionality Testing
To understand the small birds, we began with desk research – earlier studies, articles and scientific reports – to gather facts about their lives, problems and how they interact with human environments in northern countries. We complemented this with observations and interviews with bird enthusiasts who had deep experience. This combination gave us insights into feeding, nesting and garden behaviours. In this phase, it was important to map what was known and highlight knowledge gaps for further exploration.
With our initial insights, we moved on to defining the core problem. Brainstorming and an affinity diagram helped us cluster findings and identify the most pressing challenges. We chose to focus on sedentary birds in Sweden during winter and their struggle to maintain energy and warmth. To keep the definition user-centred, we created scenarios about the blue tit Peter and developed a storyboard based on his daily experiences.
In the ideation phase, we generated ideas through collaborative brainstorming and sketching. Brainstorming expanded the design space and fostered creativity, while sketches visualised solutions for team evaluation. We applied the method “How might we…?” to reframe problems into opportunities. By iterating through feedback and discussion, our ideas became more feasible and relevant.
The prototype phase let us explore implementation. We began with a digital Arduino simulation as a low-fidelity prototype, quickly testing and validating ideas. Iteration was key – we added or removed components to refine the design. Once stable, we built a physical prototype using an Arduino microcontroller inside a wooden bird box, combining physical and digital elements into one system.
Ideally, prototypes should be tested with real users. Since our users were small birds, this wasn’t possible at the fidelity we reached. Instead, we tested functionality of the prototype to verify coding and made small adjustments. Weekly supervisor reviews provided valuable feedback and criticism, helping us improve both design and technical details.
Designing with animals as the user introduces several difficulties compared to traditional human-computer interaction. Communication is the most obvious barrier: unlike humans, animals cannot directly express needs or provide feedback. Because of this, methods such as interviews had to be discarded in our project, and we instead relied on desk research, observations, and insights from bird experts. A key risk here is that our assumptions about animal behaviour may be biased by human interpretation, which can reduce the reliability of the design process.
Another challenge is that the user group cannot be involved in iterative evaluation in the same way as humans. Testing with real animals often requires a very high level of fidelity, which can be costly, time-consuming, and ethically complex. There is also a risk of unintended ecological consequences, since supporting one species may negatively impact another.
From the course, we learned the importance of adapting human-centred design methods to animal contexts. Observations and personas proved valuable, but we had to rethink their purpose: not as direct feedback tools, but as ways to empathise with animals through expert knowledge and biological insights. Ultimately, the course taught us to be more reflective, critical, and creative in approaching non-human interaction.
At the end of the course, all participants showcased their final products in an exhibition. Each team presented not only the prototype, but also a selling poster, a design thinking poster, and a brochure documenting the process and illustrating key steps with photos. This final presentation tied the project together and highlighted the value of communicating both process and outcome.
