Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: ce916950b59615f2725a6535f5391e1627786de840b601fa88f6c4e166a8fb8c

# Video Card Family Game

Pairs review short ethnographic video clips, annotate matching still-frame cards, and cluster them into families. The whole room negotiates card additions across posters by testing candidate video clips against theme criteria.

**Time:** 120 minutes. Gamestorming source describes a 7 to 8 hour field research day. UWT provides this standard 120-minute workshop version for structured team synthesis.
**People:** 6 to 12. Working pairs (with one trio if total headcount is odd) who remain together as subgroup units, followed by plenary review with all subgroups

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Synthesize ethnographic field recordings into verified behavioral themes anchored in observable actions rather than speculative interpretations.
**Use it when:** Use during design research synthesis when cross-functional product teams must distill hours of video fieldwork into shared, evidence-based patterns of user action.
**Skip it when:** Skip when you lack recordings of physical user activity, when footage consists primarily of talking-head interviews, or when only a short workshop window is available.

## Materials and tools

- Video camera or smartphone used for initial recording
- Video editing software for clip trimming
- Graphics and desktop publishing software for card layout
- Color printer and index card stock paper
- Printed duplicate card decks (each card features a key frame image, title, unique segment ID, and blank notes margin; 6 to 10 cards per participant)
- Edited video clips matching card IDs (maximum 2 minutes each)
- Video playback devices (laptop or tablet per subgroup) with headphones or headphone splitters
- Central display screen, projector, and speakers for plenary video playback
- Fine-tip markers or pens (one per participant)
- Poster sheets or foam boards (one per subgroup)
- Tape or adhesive putty for attaching cards to posters
- Printed Theme Documentation Worksheets (one per subgroup poster)

## Before participants arrive

1. Substantial advance preparation: Edit fieldwork video into segments under two minutes focusing on physical actions rather than conversation using video editing software.
2. Select a representative key frame from each video segment and assign a unique identifier.
3. Produce duplicate cards on card stock using graphics and publishing software, featuring the key frame, title, ID, and a blank notes field, then print them.
4. Assemble identical card stacks (6 to 10 cards per stack) so partners each have their own identical set.
5. Load matching video files onto subgroup playback devices and the central presentation machine.

## Say this to open

We are going to analyze user research footage using physical video cards. Our first job is separating observation from interpretation. Observation records concrete facts: who is acting, what physical action they take, where, and how. Interpretation asserts why they did it. Please review your assigned clips silently, log factual notes directly on your own cards, and avoid guessing internal motives. Later, our goal will be to group these cards into thematic families and offload unassigned cards from your hands into matching posters.

## How to run it

### 1. Brief rules and distinguish observation from interpretation (10 minutes)

Explain the multi-stage process. Clarify the boundary between observation and interpretation. For example, 'The user pressed the green lever twice with their index finger' is an observation; 'The user was confused by the layout' is an interpretation. Form pairs (or one trio if attendance is odd). Hand out duplicate card decks to each participant, ensuring partners each have matching copies of all cards. Clarify that a major goal during plenary play is offloading unassigned cards into valid matching families.

### 2. Review clips and write individual notes (20 minutes)

Participants work side by side in their subgroups without talking. Each participant watches the video clips corresponding to their cards on their subgroup playback device. Participants write concrete, observational notes directly on their own cards. Notes should record who acted, what physical action took place, context, and method.

### 3. Cluster cards into families within subgroups (15 minutes)

Subgroup partners compare notes on what they observed. Together, they arrange their cards on a table into multiple thematic clusters or families based on shared patterns of physical action. Any operational theme is acceptable as long as it reflects actual user actions rather than assumed feelings.

### 4. Select favorite family and prepare subgroup poster (15 minutes)

Each subgroup selects their single favorite family cluster from the groups they formed on their table. They affix those cards onto one poster sheet, write a clear family theme title across the top, and cue the corresponding video clips on their playback device for quick review.

### 5. Pitch posters and exchange cards through video challenges (40 minutes)

Convene the room. Each subgroup presents their poster. Other participants propose additions from their unassigned cards to offload them. The presenting subgroup accepts or challenges each proposal. If challenged, the room screens the proposed clip to test the fit against theme criteria. Accepted cards attach to the poster. Rotate presenters until all posters are tested. Any remaining unassigned cards that do not fit existing posters are placed in a central reserve pile for subsequent analysis.

### 6. Document themes and conduct debrief (20 minutes)

Subgroups complete a printed Theme Documentation Worksheet for their finalized poster family. Direct teams to select two representative cards that best illustrate the core action for the concrete examples section. Complete remaining fields: theme definition, family resemblance criteria, context, and user methods. Conclude with 2 to 3 whole-room debrief reflections.


## Debrief questions

- Which card proposals triggered disagreement, and how did watching the raw video clip resolve it?
- Where did interpretation creep into your initial card notes, and how did factual observation alter your theme?
- What user behavior surfaced across multiple card families that our design plan currently overlooks?

**Finished output:** Validated poster boards with card clusters and completed Theme Documentation Worksheets detailing verified user actions and contextual evidence.

## Remote

Use a digital whiteboard containing pre-loaded key frame images and embedded links to short video segments. Subgroups work in breakout rooms to annotate and cluster cards on separate frames. In plenary session, presenting subgroups display their board while participants paste candidate cards onto it. Proposed clips are reviewed via host screen share. Unassigned cards move to a designated digital archive column.

## Hybrid

In-person subgroups use physical cards and posters while remote subgroups work on mirrored digital boards. A designated co-facilitator mirrors physical cards to the digital canvas and plays challenged clips through screen share with room audio.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide written transcripts or closed captions for all video clips to support participants who are deaf or hard of hearing.
- Offer high-contrast card prints and digital magnification options for visual accessibility.
- Participants may opt to record documentation notes rather than verbally pitch or defend cards during the plenary exchange.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants write speculative opinions like 'user felt frustrated' instead of physical descriptions.**

Prompt them with concrete questions: 'What did their hands do? Which button did they press? How many seconds did they pause?'

**Participants hoard cards instead of offering them to other families during the plenary pitch.**

Remind players that the game objective is to clear unassigned cards from your personal stack into valid matching families.


## Terms used here

- Key frame: A single still image selected from a video clip that clearly captures the core physical action.
- Family resemblance: Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept that members of a category share overlapping similarities rather than one single required feature.

## Participant material: Theme Documentation Worksheet

FAMILY THEME DOCUMENTATION

1. Family Theme Name:
____________________________________________________

2. Theme Description (What core action or pattern defines this family?):
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

3. Family Resemblance (Why do these specific video cards belong together?):
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

4. Concrete Example 1 (Select a representative card from your poster):
- Card ID:
- Observable Action:

5. Concrete Example 2 (Select a second representative card from your poster):
- Card ID:
- Observable Action:

6. Context of Action (Where, when, and under what conditions does this occur?):
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

7. User Method (How do people physically accomplish or adapt this action?):
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming (post by Larry Irons), which attributes the original Video Card Game to Werner Sperschneider at Danfoss A/S, with further research citations from Margot Brereton, Jared Donovan, Stephen Viller, Jacob Buur, and Astrid Soendergaard.

Retained the core mechanic from Gamestorming: advance video clipping, duplicate card creation, silent observation annotation, subgroup clustering into families, poster preparation, whole-room challenge mechanism where players offload cards, and structured 5-part documentation. Gamestorming outlines a full 7 to 8 hour fieldwork analysis workshop. To support standard workshop schedules, UWT scaled the running time to a focused 120-minute synthesis session while preserving all 10 source steps across 6 structured phases. Subgroups remain in pairs or trios, and instructions specify card offloading rules, video playback verification, and theme documentation.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/video-card-family-game)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/video-card-family-game/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/video-card-family-game/