So when I started this assignment, I was definetely going for a badly animated weird-looking version of myself: this is my disclaimer.
I basically just used a combination of very simple shapes and lines in a specific order to create a face. I struggled the most with the arc, because it took me so long to figure out the numbers. In the beginning, I think trying to estimate the coordinate points and figure out what goes where in regards to numbers was the most challenging. But after a base is set up and parameters are set, it makes things easier. This is how my project ended up looking with my code:
For my stupid pet trick, I wanted to create something that would be kind of dumb, but like a game to play with. After struggling foreverrrrrrrr to come up with an idea, I decided to start from the opposite route. I began by messing around with a few different codes and circuits. One of the circuits and codes I created was a random number generator. That made me think of a dice and the applications that could have in real life.
I began thinking of board games and how that could be a used. I then was thinking about just how random the blinking lights were, and guessing which one would come next was near impossible. Then, it struck me that a lottery would be the perfect setup to use this!
I decided to make a lottery box. The way it worked was that a press of a button would trigger the lights to randomize and see if it matched up with the number drawn. I then had to go back into the code and add in the ‘if’ statement for the button. However, I was not able to make the button so that one click would trigger the motion, rather, the button had to stay consistently down in order to work. This was due to the amount of delays in the code.
I ended up laser printing the sides of the box out of cardboard and hot glueing them together. As for the lights, I soldered wires of the right length on to them, as well as the button. I then simply painted the boxand printed out a few instructions toadd to the game so that it made more sense, and voila.
For this week’s project, I was brainstorming the possible human motions that I could create using a motor. (Also, I didn’t use a DC motor for my final project because I thought that using a servo counted as using a motor oops).
While brainstorming, everytime me and a friend would come up with an idea, we would high-five each other. The ideas would end up not working, mainly due to technical reasons and because I would then look back and be like “nah I don’t like it anymore”. After a while, it hit me that a high-five would be a great human motion, used in everyday life, that could easily be replicated.
I simply cut out a hand shape from styrofoam, glued it onto a cardboard piece, and attached it to a servo that was then attached to wood for stability.
As for the coding, all I did was adjust the angle of the servo’s movement so that it would go back and forth consistently.
Looking back, it would’ve been really cool to add some sort of button, like a photocell, that would detect when someone was moving in for a high-five, and then trigger the movement.
Starting this project, we were initially confused as what we wanted it to do to give the illusion of a musical instrument. We started by talking about different mechanisms we could use that would have a chain-reaction type set up so that eventually a part of the set up would trigger the tone.
Then we decided that we wanted to instead utilize the different parts we have as a group of three and the resources provided. We decided to make a band!
We collectively worked on these, but to start we each began by working on a part of the project that would in the end all come together . We decided on three methods of creating sounds: 1) using buttons that trigger the notes 2) using a servo to produce sound with a physical object 3) using a potentiometer to create different notes.
1)Piano though buttons:
First, we set up the circuit which contained 4 buttons and 2 speakers:
We then set up the following code so that each button would produce a different note (C4, D4, E4, F4).
We decided to use two speakers instead of one so that different notes could be played simultaneously. In one of our experiments, we tried to get two buttons played simultaneously to produce another note, but the sound that produced didn’t sound like a note, rather a bleak pitch.
Alone, this is how this part of the project works:
2)Macarena:
For this part of the project, we originally started by wanting to program the speed of the servos movement so that it would hit another object and create a repetitive sound, like a drum. However, we couldn’t find the material to attach to the servo which would hit another material to create a big enough impact to generate a sound, and so we decided use the servo to create sound through a physical movement. Our first thought was bells- it would work well enough and produce a ring sound. Then, we experimented with a variety of materials that would produce sound alone, like beads. In the end, we created a little box with beads inside and glued it to the servo with hot glue like this:
We then created the following code so that the potentiometer would control the speed of the servo and allow us to control the tempo of the instrument:
Alone, this is how this part of the project works:
3)DJ knob Crescendo:
Lastly, we originally wanted to create a crescendo of sounds using a photosensor. There were many difficulties with this, especially the coding. However, after a lot of struggling, it worked. Until it didn’t. To fix the problem we decided to replace the photosensor, which had too many unknown variables, with a knob. In the coding, we mapped out the 0-1023 range into eight different notes: C3-C4.
To play it one would place their finger on the speaker in order to control the volume of the notes while the other hand utilizes the knob to change the notes.
This is how this part works by itself:
4)As a whole:
This is how all three parts work together:
Though not completely in sync, theoretically, if one is willing enough, one could learn how to make these instruments sound like a band.
The most striking phrase for me in this reading was ‘intuitive design’. I find it incredibly interesting how we subconsciously create movement that is for an intended purpose in several everyday occurrences and never realize what we are actually doing.
I liked the idea of exploring the capabilities of our hands- I think that the author makes a valid point in the way which we are able to do so much with our hands and that with technological advances we may be diminishing our capabilities. He claims that in the ‘Picture Under Glass’ we are subjecting ourselves to a medium that is not a dynamic medium that we can see, feel and manipulate. Although I understand his point, I feel like he misjudges the ability of swipes and small hand gestures to be a part of human capabilities; they are not any less complex than other movements we may use to interact with an object. An example of this is the new iPhone 10- if you go to use it for the first time, you need to learn these ‘swiping’ abilities, going to prove that this movement is not a simple, straight-forward one. Rather, it is one which many humans cannot understand, like my grandparents.
I really liked the part when he talked about our bodies moving in space, although he used it as an argument against the said swiping motions that I say is more complex than he thinks.
I think in his response he argues his points well, although I still disagree that using a single finger is ‘dumbing down’ the idea, like toys for children. Yes, I agree that the single finger is not the entire capability of an adult human, but I think that this movement as a capability should not be overlooked.
At the beginning, I was unsure of how to do something ‘unexpected’ with some lights (disclaimer: I still don’t think this is unexpected enough but oh well). As I was crossing the road the other day, I noticed that people kept pressing that little button that was supposed to make the waiting time at the pedestrian crossing faster. I wondered if that actually had any effect on the time difference of the blinking of the traffic light.
I decided to try to create a circuit where, using a pentameter, could control the speed of the blinking of the traffic light. I began by setting up my circuit on the board.
I had my pentameter as an input at A0, my red light attached to the digital output 13, the yellow light at digital output 11, and the green light at digital output 9.
I struggled a little bit with the coding so I went back to the codes we did last class and watched the videos on Analog Input and Analog Output to try and comprehend how it could be done. I don’t think my code ended up being the most simple, but I tried to make it clear enough that I could understand each step, even though I’m sure that there are several extra parts that could be eliminated. My final code ended up looking like this:
In the end, this is how the circuit worked when plugged in with the code:
I think it would be really interesting to figure out much the ratio is between blinking lights at the traffic lights, and how to program the differences in the blinking of the lights.
When I began reading this article, I was confronted with the statement: “If we were to follow Norman’s description, our designs would all be usable, but they would be ugly.” Immediately, I felt confused and kind of defensive. I saw no where in Norman’s work any indications that designs would end up ugly. As I continued reading, I realized that this point is argued, which made me feel better. The idea that aesthetic and functionality should go hand in hand made sense to me, so I did not consider for a second that Norman’s work excluded aesthetic value because it was not important. I simply assumed, as he later points out, that aesthetic is not mentioned because it is not the primary argument.
This piece lends a focus on behavior rather than design in particular. The affect and behavior of humans can dramatically alter their relationship with a design or task. Negative affect can make easy tasks harder, while positive affect can make difficult tasks easier.
Understanding this aspect of behavior and affect, it is clear that usability and function should be in balance to aesthetic and beauty.
I really liked this reading because I think it highlights parts of design which we assume are unspoken rules. Why would anything be designed without a purpose or function? Usability furthers the concept of function- a design shouldn’t simply have a function, but should function well. Norman goes beyond simply saying that designs should function well, he explains that the relationship between user perception and the design is importance through affordances and signifiers. He also highlights that not all designs are physical designs, which is important in considering that ‘interactive media’ does not always necessarily focus on the physical aspects of objects.
I liked the idea of the ‘system image’, the combined information available to us. Because it is so natural to simply apply previous experience into the handling of new designs, thinking about the combination of factors that combine to make said experience is interesting. This should be considered when designing my own products, because I need to differentiate between the experiences I personally have, as a designer, and the experiences that different users from different backgrounds will have.
Coding is confusing. Just a little bit. I’ve never done any coding before or computer science, so Wednesday was a first for me. I thought I understood what was happening during last class (which I did) but when I went over it again everything was kind of jumbled. So when I went to program for my maze game, I wanted to write a code which I could clearly understand.
I basically coded it so that when the button- which was the end point of the maze in my project- was hit, the two lights would alternatively flicker on and off. Here is a video of my project in action:
Not gonna lie, this reading confused me at first. I wasn’t sure how what I was reading was relevant to the course material, even though I found it quite interesting. The link between universality in written language, such as numerals and the alphabet was interesting to me. Also, his example of pictograms started the reading in a very logical order where he continued to link this idea of universality into other fields. Moving into the context of computers, he continues the argument for universality in a coherent manner, but honestly, it was just a little confusing to me. I felt like it was super drawn out, rather than straight to the point which may have been more helpful.
