The Maker’s Minute
Aalaap Hedge & Marielle Zheng
Overview
Our P4 project builds upon our P1 game, The Maker’s Minute, which centers on the creation of an interactive design drawing and pitching game that teaches players to think creatively about accessibility while practicing fundamental design principles. The game combines elements of storytelling, improvisation, and visual thinking to engage players in designing for real-world accessibility challenges. Through timed drawing and pitching rounds, players are prompted to generate imaginative, creative, yet practical solutions for diverse user needs and populations, from those with visual impairments to learning disabilities.
The primary goal of our game is to encourage creative and inclusive design thinking by placing players in scenarios that require empathy, adaptability, and ingenuity. Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought in the design process; this game brings it to the forefront in a way that is engaging and approachable. By gamifying the process of user-centered design, players gain both awareness of the barriers faced by populations with accessibility needs and hands-on practice in applying design principles to address them.
The game is designed for individuals who may not be deeply familiar with universal design but are interested in creativity, collaboration, and communication. It appeals especially to players who enjoy fast-paced, story-driven games– those that challenge participants to think quickly and express ideas effectively rather than rely on strategy or competition. Each round encourages drawing, improvisation, and pitching, creating an environment that rewards curiosity and imagination over perfection. Players from previous sessions also noted that the game feels especially well-suited for those interested in product management. They highlighted how the mechanics naturally mirror core PM skills, such as pitching ideas clearly, practicing user-centered design, and thinking about products through cross-functional and interdisciplinary lenses.
By the end of gameplay, players will walk away as more creative and equitable designers and communicators. They will have practiced applying core design principles to accessibility-focused problems and honed their ability to generate ideas under constraints. Additionally, the process nurtures flexible, empathetic thinking– essential qualities for innovation in any design context.
Ultimately, the project aims to bridge creativity and inclusivity through play. By transforming accessibility design into a participatory and imaginative experience, the game not only builds design skills but also fosters an enduring mindset: one that values designing with and for all users.
History Versions of Game
Before Playtest 1
Following the last round of feedback for P1, we made several key improvements to the digital prototypes of our final P1 version of the game. First, we introduced “Design Principle Cards”, with each design principle card containing a core design principle, as well as a guidance on how to apply it during the sketching phase. The rationale behind this was for the deeper learning outcomes to be achieved, specifically in equipping players with tangible design skills they can walk away from the game with.
We also enhanced user cards, with the information section now containing one quantitative (i.e educational numerical statistic) and three qualitative (i.e anecdotal story from person impacted by specific accessibility issue) facts related to the user population. We also provided the judge with a new structured rubric to guide them to more meaningfully assess each design. With the changes, the rulebook was updated to clarify the judge’s role and include the rubric-based evaluation process.
Post-playtest interviews from P1 additionally revealed that many players drew on their own lived experiences when designing and pitching inclusive products. For example, one player noted that “40% of blind people don’t use braille,” while another mentioned that, in China, “we have a similar system that’s toe-activated.” These insights prompted us to strengthen our pre- and post-interview protocols by adding questions aimed at capturing how players’ prior experiences influence their gameplay, and how their understanding of real-world design evolves throughout the game. And with this version in mind, we begin with Playtest 1 for P4.
Figure 1. An evolutionary representation of P1 game card prototypes; final prototype consist of newer graphic designs, clearer topics and more specific user populations, more organized format, and lamination for polish.
Playtest 1- Picking Up Where P1 Left Off
Dec 3, Five Masters Students (2F, 3M), CS 377G Class
Playtest 1 took place on December 3rd during CS 377G. Five masters students participated: two female, three male. According to pre-playtest surveys, all five players shared that they had previously designed solutions or products with accessibility in mind, and most came from design or HCI backgrounds. However, despite this experience, two of the five players still rated their confidence in generating creative design ideas as a 2 out of 5, suggesting room for growth and highlighting the value of engaging in a game-based creative process.
The playtest lasted roughly one hour. A total of four rounds were played with the following card combinations:
| Round | Topic Card | User Card | Design Principle Card |
| 1 | Shopping Cart | Anxiety | Simplicity |
| 2 | Elevator Buttons | Anxiety | Visibility |
| 3 | Elevator Buttons | ADHD | Affordance |
| 4 | Alarm Clock | ADHD | Feedback |
Analysis and key takeaways from this and the following playtests will be divided into two categories: what went well, and what we need to revise for next steps.
What went well:
Across all rounds, card combinations were logical and intuitive. In previous versions, maintaining consistency had been difficult, as some combinations felt forced or nonsensical (e.g., “umbrella for someone with dyslexia”). For this playtest, we increased the number of cards across all decks by about 20 each, and carefully reviewed the new additions to ensure that the possible combinations remained coherent. This deliberate expansion appeared to improve the overall balance of the game.
We also introduced a new category: design principle cards. This stemmed directly from feedback that the learning outcomes needed to be more explicit, particularly if our goal was to support players in becoming more empathetic and creative designers. These cards offered an additional interpretive lens, helping players anchor their ideas. Post-playtest feedback confirmed the value of this new category, as one participant noted they “learned more about creative and silly ways to think about [design],” and that they “didn’t get a combination that didn’t make sense.”
Figure 2. Playtesters actively engaging, participating, and sharing their ‘creative’ and ‘silly’ designs in the pitching part of game.
Next Steps: What Needs Revision?
As with any playtest, this session surfaced several insightful opportunities for improvement. The feedback clustered into two main areas: rules, and graphics/card layout.
Rules
Player Count
Although the game was originally designed for 5+ players, we found that with five participants, ideas often overlapped and players began piggybacking on one another’s pitches. Moving forward, we will revise the recommended player count to 3–4 players.
Timing and Pacing
Playtesters requested slightly more time to read and interpret the card combinations. We will introduce a 10-second grace period, combined with the existing one-minute drawing phase, allowing players to allocate time more flexibly. Pitch time will also be increased from 20 to 30 seconds, as the original time felt “too rushed.” A physical hourglass will be added to make time visible at a glance, since players reported not noticing digital timers.
Card Selection
Currently, cards are drawn face up, which reduces the surprise element. In future iterations, all cards will be faced down before selection.
Token Cards
Instead of awarding a random card as a “token,” playtesters suggested that user cards should serve as the tokens that winners collect. This better reflects the emotional weight and narrative of “designing for a community,” and provides a clearer throughline across rounds.
Round Transitions
To improve continuity, we intentionally kept one card consistent from round to round, after feedback from previous playtests that playtesters didn’t feel there was enough continuity from one round to the next, and that the transition felt fragmented. However, in this round, players found this repetitive and reported that they should be able to ‘just draw new combinations of cards each round’ since the introduction of design principle cards now offers a stable interpretive anchor. Going forward, we will shift to drawing new combinations each round.
Role of the Judge
Regarding revisions for the judge’s role, playtesters felt a judging rubric was no longer necessary, as the combination of three card types provided sufficient criteria. Adding a rubric only increased cognitive load and “added to more confusion”, according to the player who acted as judge in Round 1. Thus, the rubric will be removed for the next iteration.
Future Possibility: Digital Version
Going forward, playtesters also suggested potential for a digital version where judging could be automated. For now, we will focus on refining the analogue sketch-and-draw version since we wanted to prioritzie the immersive in-the-moment experience of sketching and pitching, but a digital expansion remains a possible future direction.
Graphics
User Cards and Narrative Detail
The strongest graphical/content feedback from playtersters was the desire for more qualitative and anecdotal information on the user cards. Playtesters wanted to see “how the condition actually impacts people,” and noted they “didn’t necessarily learn more about specific disability communities.” To address this, future versions will include richer contextual details and emotional narratives, to help deepen empathy and understanding. We will be revising the content of the user cards to add more detailed descriptions of struggles that are experienced by the users in a more anecdotal language to add more to the emotional weight. Since playtesters also reported in their post-playtest survey that while they felt they learned more on how to think and design ‘creatively’ and in ‘sillier ways’, they did “not necessarily learn more about specific disability communities”. So now adding new specifics to the user cards with more qualitative data should help with this desired learning outcome where the game can expand the players’ knowledge and awareness of specific disability communities.
Figure 3. Playtester responses in post-play test survey demonstrate a gap in current design regarding learning outcomes (i.e limited awareness of communities impacted by accessibility issues).
Central board
Participants also recommended a central board to organize and display the three decks, helping streamline the play process. A rough sketch was created during feedback and will inform the next iteration.
Figure 4. Initial rough sketch of central board to address gap in improving overall visibility during gameplay.
Card Consistency
Finally, all cards should have consistent physical dimensions. During this playtest, the design principle cards were slightly larger, but playtesters noted that it would make more sense for all cards to share consistency in the physical size and formatting. To maintain visual coherence, all cards will be redesigned to share the same size and formatting before the next playtest.
Playtest 2: “New Rules”: Introducing and Testing a New Core Rule
Dec 3, Five Masters Students (2F, 3M), CS 377G Class
This playtest lasted roughly 10 minutes, with the following card combinations being chosen:
| Round | Topic Card | User Card | Design Principle Card |
| *5 | Alarm Clock | Memory Challenges | Consistency and Standards |
* Round 5 included an implementation of the new “question and poke” rule
Playtest 1 lasted roughly an hour, and just before wrapping up, we wanted to quickly test a new rule that had emerged from player feedback. Since class time was ending, we ran a rapid Playtest 2 with the same group, focusing exclusively on the “Question and Poke” rule.
For the “Question and Poke” Rule, the new revision now allows the first player who pitches each round to directly question another player’s design. This rule was introduced to reduce the disadvantage of pitching first, while also influencing the judge’s decision. This stemmed from feedback from a playtester in Playtest 1. At one point, they remarked that as the first person going in that round, they felt that there was an urgency and need placed on the first person to have to come up with original ideas on the spot, especially in how they pitch during the pitching section, and that it felt unfair that all the other players don’t have to pitch immediately while also being able to hear what and how the first person pitched. The player enjoyed the competitive nature of the game, but they suggested that to bring more balance to the game, the first player to pitch each round should have the opportunity to choose and directly question another player’s design. When this rule was implemented, all players unanimously agreed that it was an effective addition to the rulebook. In terms of aesthetics, the first player of this round reported that the game felt more fair and balanced, that they themselves felt more willing to engage with the game during the pitching round, and the judge confirmed that the critique provided new perspectives for them that influenced their decision in picking the winner of the round. 
Figure 5. First player of the round critiquing and questioning another player’s sketch as a part of this new rule implementation.
Playtest 3: Identifying Graphic Design Improvements
Dec 9, 3 Chinese Females, (2 in Mid 50s, 1 in early 20s), Home
The playtest took place on December 9th in the afternoons. Two Chinese females in their 50s and another Chinese masters student participated in this playtest. According to pre-playtest surveys, the two playtesters in their 50s did not have any prior background in design and had no exposure to accessibility issues or communities with accessibility needs. Regarding their confidence in generating creative design ideas, the two gave themselves a score of 1 out of 5, indicating low confidence in design abilities and skills, while the masters students reported a score of 4 out of 5, due to their background in human-centered design.
The playtest lasted around 45 minutes. A total of four rounds were played with the following card combinations:
| Round | Topic Card | User Card | Design Principle Card |
| 1 | Shower Controls | Elderly with Reduced Mobility | Error Prevention |
| 2 | Water Bottle | Prosthetic Hand/Arm | Visibility |
| 3 | Keys | Hard of Hearing | Affordance |
| 4 | Backpack | Wheelchair User | Feedback |
What went well:
Since the graphic designs were still being finalized, this playtest focused on how players responded to revisions in the game rules.
Previously, only one card (either the user or the topic card) changed each round. Based on earlier feedback, especially after introducing the design principle cards, playtesters felt we no longer needed to limit rotation to avoid repetitiveness. In this playtest, we drew a completely new set of cards each round. Players reported that this made the game more engaging and unpredictable, and they enjoyed experimenting with different combinations of design principles. Last time, players also asked for more time to interpret the card combinations. We added a 10-second grace period before the one-minute sketching phase, giving them more flexibility in how they used their time. We also increased pitch time from 20 to 30 seconds, since the original duration felt “too rushed.” This round, players said the pacing felt just right, with all players stating in the post-playtest survey that ‘the 30-second pitch window hit a “sweet spot”’, since it was just enough time to share their idea clearly, but still constrained enough to practice concise pitching. Cards were previously drawn face up, which minimized the element of surprise. So for this playtest, cards were drawn face down before selection, and participants appreciated the added suspense and enjoyed encountering challenges with a fresh pair of eyes each round. Another rule revision that was applied in this playtest was regarding which card was given as the ‘token’. In earlier playtests, winners received a random card as a token. This time, winners collected the user cards from their winning round. This change created a clearer narrative arc around “designing for a community” and made the tokens feel more meaningful. Players responded positively to this update.
Figure 6. The two playtesters playing the Maker’s Minute, as they spend the first 1 minute and 10 seconds understanding the cards and task in front of them.
Next Steps: What Needs Revision?
Overall, the playtest ran smoothly, and the players remained fully engaged throughout. They consistently described the game as intuitive, energizing, and surprisingly fun. Several participants mentioned feeling more confident and creative in their design abilities by the end, especially because the game gave them repeated practice with rapid sketching and pitching. Even though none of the players came from backgrounds where public speaking is typically encouraged, they adapted quickly and delivered thoughtful, well-structured pitches. It was clear they genuinely enjoyed describing their sketches and explaining their design decisions.
One player, who had never been exposed to design thinking before, highlighted how transformative the experience felt. After comparing their own conventional idea in Round 1 to the more playful or unconventional ideas shared by others, they said (translated), “I like how creative and silly some of the designs seem, but also how imaginative and useful they are. I want to keep pushing myself in the next rounds and build my design skills.” Moments like this reinforced the game’s potential as a gentle, low-stakes way to build creative confidence.
When asked about revisions, players felt the gameplay itself was balanced and didn’t require further changes. The only consistent suggestion concerned the visual design: the color palettes for the user cards and the design principle cards were too similar, making it harder to distinguish categories quickly during play. They recommended introducing more distinct and complementary colors across all three card types to create clearer visual separation and reduce confusion. Going forward, we’ll iterate on the graphic design to ensure each category has its own unmistakable look and feel.
Figure 7. Playtesters approached game with creative sketches and written descriptions of features for the designs to aid pitching.
Playtest 4: Final Evaluation and Consolidated Feedback
Dec 10, 2 Middle-Aged Adults (1 working in product, 1 working in physical disability therapy), 1 11th-Grade Male, Home
What went well:
This playtest ran smoothly from start to finish. All rules were followed without confusion, and no issues emerged around the game’s core mechanics. Across the group, players described the experience as fun, engaging, and easy to pick up. Their feedback aligned closely with the previous playtest, reinforcing that the current rule set feels balanced and intuitive.
Players also responded positively to the overall pacing. The hourglass provided a clear visual cue for time remaining, which made them more aware and intentional during both the sketching and pitching phases. The flow of each round felt natural, and the pitch segment continued to be a highlight—participants enjoyed sharing their ideas and hearing how others interpreted the same prompts.
This session also marked the first time we tested the game using the finalized graphic design for all card types. In the last playtest, participants had noted the need for more consistent and complementary visual elements across categories. In response, we implemented a new system for the cards. Rather than having the user and design principle cards share similar color themes, we decided to implement a clear green-blue-purple color scheme across the three types of cards, which creates a meaningful connection to accessibility and inclusive design on multiple levels. From a practical standpoint, green and purple/blue are highly distinguishable to people with the most common forms of color blindness (red-green color blindness), ensuring the three card categories remain visually distinct for all players while providing strong contrast against the cream background for those with low vision. Symbolically, each color carries significance: green represents “go” and “accessible” in universal design language while grounding the physical object; blue is universally used in accessibility signage and conveys the trust and empathy central to human-centered design; and purple bridges creativity and cognitive thinking, representing the innovative principles that transform ordinary objects into accessible solutions. Together, this triad reinforces the game’s core philosophy– green for what you’re making (the object), blue for who you’re making it for (the user), and purple for how you’re thinking about it (the design principle) – creating a color-coded mental model that embodies the heart of accessible design thinking. Additionally, all cards contain information in the sans serif font, Arial, as it is widely considered to be a solid, accessible, and professional default font that’s commonly used in communities with accessibility needs.
Overall, when asked how they felt about the new color theme of the cards, players found the updated visual system intuitive and aesthetically cohesive.
Next Steps: What Needs Revision?
The only issues identified during this playtest came from reviewing the print-and-play version. Since we wanted to have a near production-ready game, we wanted to test the print and play as well. Aalaap asked his younger brother to setup the game for some of his friends using the print and play, but he noticed that the pages were mis-aligned. This was because the instructions (for the print and play) was just one page so the rulebook printed on the back of the instructions. This had a ripple effect where every page was off by one. In the figure below, you can see that the front and back for each card was misaligned.
Figure 8. Misalignment in page order for print and play version of game.
Hence, the current file has misaligned pages: the back of the manual printed onto the back of the print-and-play guide, and the game board’s rules printed incorrectly on its reverse side. While this does not affect gameplay directly, it creates unnecessary confusion for players assembling the game independently.
For the final version, we will correct this by adding dedicated back sides to both the print-and-play guide and the central board. This adjustment was overlooked in earlier testing, and resolving it will ensure a cleaner, more professional print experience.
——————————————————————————————
*A Brief Overview of the Graphic Design Iterations*
(For more information regarding the rationale for the changes, please refer to “History Versions of Game”)
Cards:
P4 Cards (v.1)
P4 Cards (final v.)
All cards in the final version for P4 were designed to be the same physical size to maintain consistency and ease of handling. In comparison to the first version, the new color theme was established to create a cohesive visual identity and symbolism of accessibility across all components, and the user cards now include more specific anecdotal challenges as qualitative details, in addition to the original quantitative fact.
Board:
The new central board was created to improve overall visibility during gameplay and increase engagement from players.
Rulebook:
Original P1 Rulebook
Final P4 Rulebook
The previous version of the rulebook was presented on a plain white page with only black text and simple bullet points. In comparison, the new rulebook features an updated graphic design that includes clearly divided sections with subtitles, paired icons, and color-coding. It also incorporates new rules, all written consistently in the same font. All these new features of the rulebook are implemented and designed to support ease of use and reduce cognitive load for players, taking accessibility needs into consideration.
New packaging design:
A new packaging graphic was designed to make the game visually appealing and to clearly communicate essential information, such as the number of players, recommended age range, and expected duration.
——————————————————————————————
“Print at Home” Version of “The Maker’s Minute (new)” (PDF): P4 The Maker’s Minute Print and Play
Playtest video & artifacts: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xYCAtqkGZx-Vz5KdnaaOiYnNq2_xww4P?usp=sharing
——————————————————————————————
* Clarification regarding fidelity of final version of “The Maker’s Minute” *
Unfortunately, due to a series of unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, we were unable to laminate the cards and rulebook for the final version of our game. We made multiple attempts to complete this step, including three separate visits to the Makery. On our first visit (First Wednesday), we were unable to find staff available to assist, as the laminator requires supervision and cannot be operated independently. On Thursday, the laminator malfunctioned and became stuck, rendering it unusable. We returned again on Friday, but the Makery was closed until 3:00 PM.
At the same time, we were contacting multiple external vendors, including copy stores and FedEx, in hopes of securing expedited two-day lamination services. However, all vendors reported turnaround times of at least one week due to backlogs. We also explored printing on glossy cardstock as an alternative, but encountered similar one-week delays across all providers. Additionally, Lathrop Printing was unable to accept any printing jobs until the start of the next quarter.
Despite our best efforts to pursue every available option, these unexpected constraints prevented us from producing a higher-fidelity version of the product. We acknowledge and apologize for this limitation.
Figure 9. Cards were already printed and cut out ready for lamination, until series of unforeseen issues ensued.
