Prior to user-testing, I always expected Affective Data Objects to perform well in its ability to garner a sense of identification, however that was not the case. As seen above, with a score of 93.3%, its ability to communicate in a social setting achieved the highest SIPI rating recorded in the user-testing. Followed by its representational ability (85%) and lastly the sense of identification (82.5%). On the whole, compared to the original rating of 72.5% which connotes the participants' perception of emotional states as part of their identity, all three factors had a significant increase. This shows that participants developed a stronger perception of emotions as an identifier of our self through the interaction with data objects.

Initially, I did think that the Voices as Personality prototype may garner the highest overall SIPI rating across all prototypes. Despite that, Voices as Personality did receive consistent ratings within the 80 percentile range. The prototype also performed best across all prototypes at garnering a sense of identification, with a rating of 87.5%. Based on the 77.5% rating recorded prior to user-testing, the representation and communication factors increased slightly, while the identification factor saw the largest growth of 10%. This shows that participants were able to easily identify and recognise the typographic outcome as a representation of their personality traits.

As compared to the Affective Data Objects and Voices as Personality prototypes, Identity Map received mixed results for the three factors. Identity Map accomplished the best representational ability rating, with a score of 90%, it functioned effectively as a mirror to one's digital footprint. In doing so, participants were able to reflect on the representation of their screentime activity and infer their behavioural identity from it. Although Identity Map improved the participants' initial perception of digital footprint (80%) as an identifier of one's behavioural data, it did not perform as ideally for the communication aspect. With a relatively low rating of 75%, this indicates that participants were not able to deduce behavioural qualities of others based on the visual outcome. As such, particpants were not able to recognise the Identity Map as a representation of other participants' behavioural identity. In addition, with a ratingof 82.5% in the sense of identification sector, this presents a very irregular overal SIPI result across the three factors. From the above summary table, it is clear that the communication factor requires additional measures put in place to improve the prototype to create an insightful and useful identity tool for users.

Above is a summary table featuring the collated mean scores of each prototype in the individual evaluating factor. As a whole, Affcetive Data Objects garnered an average of 86.9% rating, while Voices as Personality and Identity Map received the same average score of 82.5%. The differences between the reuslts of the three prototypes is quite marginal, in the sense where the overall score does not vary much from one another, which shows that the prototypes as a whole are effective as identity tools in general. Split into the individual evaluating sectors, the prototypes each topped an evaluating factor of its own.