The main risk here is around clarity of message. While the game appears educational and based on state-specific information (which is great) it is not clear to me what the narrative is and what data it aims to highlight. Players may walk away with more information on bee livelihoods but not clear that they’ll walk away with a particular message/sense of call to action

I think this is a well thought-out idea for a game that is hard to get a feeling for from the sketch materials.

Centrality of participation:
The project is a game, so it is clearly participatory. In addition the choices between rounds is another spot to let the audience guide it.

Rationale for design choices:
The game design matches your stated educational goals. Having the participant be the bee is fun. I’d like hear more about the idea of mapping potential bee health onto the amount of buildings. I wonder if this mapping would make sense to a kid – needs some design discussions with the target audience to see.

Layers of reading:
The game itself is pretty simple, but the idea of having this be one piece of a larger curriculum on nature makes sense. I would have liked to see more thought about the gameplay itself – what design elements would be critical and highlighted, what techniques for playing could be supported.

Appropriate data use:
I appreciate your acknowledgement that the data and potential causes are complicated.

Suitability for audience:
The choice of focusing on a younger audience is good, and creates challenges.

Narrative:
The game play and narrative prompts for this audience have to be highly visual – I don’t see a lot of that in the sketch so far so I’d encourage more iteration on that if you were to move forward. The idea of mulitiple-rounds is a nice approach to this.

Call to Action:
Your invitations of what to do match the game overall, and I like that you include both individual action and collective observation. These all sound fun!

I’m not sure that I would label it as a game, more as interactive data. I think that the link to a specific action is great – although the action itself may need to be something more convincingly effective in addressing air pollution.

Centrality of participation:
The overall design as an interactive display invites participation. That display is also a survey, reinforcing the participatory element. I appreciate the thinking about letting people scan their purchases to learn more about their environmental impact (though I wonder how the retailer would feel about that potentially discouraging purchases of lucrative items).

Rationale for design choices:
Small note – when you “see the answer” that screen should show the participant what they guessed (so they don’t forget).

Layers of reading:
I think the quiz piece would benefit from a “learn more” invitation after the participant is shown if they were right or wrong. Overall I would have liked to see more of your thinking about how the participant could dive deeper (if they are stuck in a long, slow moving line for instance).

Appropriate data use:
The high-level introduction is data-centered nicely. I like that you focused in on one state based on further research into the context of the data.

Suitability for audience:
The idea of putting an interactive display in farm-supply stories seems reasonable, and gives you good constraints for your other design choices.

Narrative:
The title is a solid take on trying to turn this into a story, and sets the tone for the Q&A quiz-like format of the first piece of the interactive.

Call to Action:
I like the call to scan the items you are buying, and you suggest that there’d be a way to learn more about their impact. I would have liked to see a suggestion for how this could be included.

Centrality of participation:
This is clearly inspired from the choice-driven examples we showcased, and I think it follows the invitation pattern well. I’m glad you were able to mock this up in HTML; that really helps understand how it feels to go through the interactive.

Rationale for design choices:
The interactive matches the idea of an online car magazine pretty well. The results of the interactive are a little hard to read – I think further iteration is needed to make it clear and self-explanatory.

Layers of reading:
The article and the invitation to put in your own criteria are the main layers here. The results visualized add more in. I can see the path to further information, but would appreciate a stronger link fro the quiz back to the accompanying article (because I think the quiz is a lot more shareable online). You suggest this in the video, and I think it is a good idea.

Appropriate data use:
Your sample selection is justified well. I like the addition of the price data and the rationale for it. The bar chart of pollution vs. cost has an aesthetic feel that matches the idea of a car magazine (for me), but doesn’t really match the rest of the visual treatment. You’re highlighting a bunch of the dimensions of comparison here, but I think you aren’t remembering some of the lessons from the “charts and graphs” sketch – ie. echoing the story of the chart with text above, removing extraneous decoration, etc.

Suitability for audience:
Casting yourself as a car magazine obviously resonates well with the dataset you’ve chosen to work with. I think the data dives would appeal to the technically minded of those readers, that that glut of charts probably makes sense here.

Narrative:
The story that pairs with the interactive has a nice lead in – focusing in on sports cars and pollution. I think have a tighter link between it and the interactive would help us understand how they fit together.

Call to action:
The audience here is those thinking about buying a car, so your goal of informing them more based on the data about the cars makes sense. The interactive accomplishes that well.

I liked how you tailored your goals to the medium and the audience, focusing on making the video filter simple and engaging. This campaign makes the topic of air pollution more approachable and shareable.
The connection to COVID-19 and the reduced air pollution from shelter-in-place restrictions does make this video filter more relevant to the current time period. I wonder if this might lull users into a false sense of security and thinking that everything is fine now that we’ve reduced pollution a bit,even though pollution will likely get worse again once restrictions are lifted. And since the future is modeled based on taking action today, it feels like the users just have to go along with the default option to get that better future with less air pollution. It would be nice to be able to see the future if we don’t change anything, then give a way for users to “unlock” the green filter, as other people have suggested.