Category: Your Work

Brainstorming:

When we first began this project, Adham and I were a bit stuck for multiple reasons:

1. we couldn’t think of an instrument to make or how to use a real one. Like if we used a real guitar, how do we pluck the strings with only 2 servos? Should we plug in 4 servos? 6 or more?
2. how do we use a buzzer and a servo in unison???
3. and lastly, I would say the biggest problem we had was we both know absolutely nothing  about music.

From there, we spotted an empty water jug and decided to work with it as a drum.  We figured we could incorporate the buzzer later.

Building/Coding

The building process was not difficult, as we just glued a wooden rod onto a servo, and filled an empty water jug about halfway.

From there, we connected the servo to our Arduino, but we ran into some issues because we thought we were going to use 2 servos. We ended up not using 2 servos but only 1, and our setup for the mechanism includes two Arduinos that are wired up together.

Splitting up the work load was a bit easier, as on one computer we had the code for the buzzer, and on another we had the program for our water jug drum.

From there, we just picked a song and programmed the bass of it into the buzzer, while our water jug would be the drum.

We couldn’t find the notes in an easy-to-read format for someone who cannot read music, and so programming the song into the buzzer took a bit of work, as we only vaguely knew what note was playing. (For example, a C note may have been playing, but we didn’t know if that was a C5, C4, or C3 etc.) So in order to code it, we mostly did it by ear.

Here is the coding for the music:

And here is the coding for the servo/stick:

 

And so our drum song became complete!

Give it a listen, do you recognize the song?

Romeno and I initially had trouble coming up with a solid plan for what we should do. We thought of making some woodwind instruments, but we didn’t know how the servo would contribute towards this sort of project. We then decided that we wanted to do something like drumming, where you touch or hit something and it’ll make a noise.

I don’t remember why, but for some reason, we decided to use crocodile clips to clip onto some metal objects. Romeno coded (see his post) so that when touched, the buzzer and LED would light up. We first tried this project by clipping a coin to the crocodile clips and putting it on the servo so that it would spin, kind of like a record player. We wanted to imitate a stick-like object so that it would be like drumsticks but rather than hitting the coin, we kept the aluminium stick stable so that the coin would spin and touch the stick and make the buzzer sound. This is shown in the video below.

After that, we wanted to do something that was cooler and provided more than one sound. So rather than attaching the crocodile clips to the coin and making it spin on the servo, we attached it to a Sprite can so that when we touched the can, it would make the LED light up and the buzzer sound. This is shown in the video below.

We then did the same thing with another can but coded it so that the two cans, when touched, would play a different note (see Romeno’s code). We tried creating more cans that would make notes so that it would kind of resemble a piano, but we couldn’t figure out why when we tried to add another can/note, nothing would work. Therefore, we left it with only two cans/notes.

[UPDATE] We got 4 cans/notes to work/play, yay!!!

We couldn’t figure out what to do with the servo, but we thought that hey since we already have a piano-like instrument, why not make a set of drums to go with it! We attached a long ruler-like object that we found in the junk shelf onto the servo and used a cookie box as the drum kit so that when hit the lid and the bottom of the box, they would make sounds that could potentially resemble the bass drum and the hi-hat. The servo speed can be changed using the potentiometer so the beat could be changed to match the speed that you want to play the “piano” in.  The code for that is shown below:

Our homemade instrument kit is now, therefore, complete! Below is a video of it!

 

A brief rant on the future of interactive design makes a claim that I find fundamentally interesting, that most visions of the future are too conservative, to similar to now. I find this quite interesting, because it seems that we have gone an awfully long time since Any new visions were seriously put forth. This article was written in 2011, and in the response he mentions that the iPad is good, but only if it gets replaced relatively quickly. 7 years later, and all of the handheld devices made by any company still are almost identical to the original iPhone, and with these companies current business models this is unlikely to change. I think this is a large part of the reason that progress has been relatively slow. Even at this time everything looks like what we grew up thinking of as “modern”, and so even without innovating much companies can sell their product as if it were a new and amazing thing, because it has the right aesthetic. No serious cultural force has put forth a competing image, and so we have entered a cycle where companies that benefit from our current image reinforce the image, and therefore benefit more, and therefore have more leverage to continue the cycle. There is simply no immediate money in competing views. This analysis seems quite pessimistic, but I think that is another aspect of what has changed. While commercial interest have always had a part in creating our image of the future, I can think of nothing in the modern day that takes the role of the first few generations of science fiction in portraying visionary possible(or impossible) futures. Most of the science fiction I see today is either simple repetition of visions of others, or heavily distopian. Something changed after the era of star-trek so that we seem to no longer view the future of a better, different place, but have become jaded and have lost the belief that a paradigm shift is possible.

P.S. I combined the two responses into 1 double length one because the two articles together address a single idea.

Victor offered a variety of valid counter-arguments for some of the “faults” in his rant (I didn’t even think they we’re big faults if I’m being honest), but I don’t know if I have much to say when considering whether I’m satisfied with him not having a solution. I can accept many of his initial arguments due to his experience in the field. So, if he cannot come up with some solutions, I don’t know whether the rant was worth it.

I acknowledge his input of the use of other motions in his previous post, but when considering solely this one: I appreciate his one sentence solution about wearing gloves in order to have a sense of where one’s hand is in a 3D interface. I wish he would expand more on that, the idea of another crucial piece of technology which we have to cary intrigues me. I’m sure that his speaking out about this problem will improve some researchers thoughts or interface. But because I enjoyed his way of thinking and his arguments, if I were a developer I would be grateful for some inspiration.

Good Read.

My initial thoughts when first viewing the video were “wow, that looks so aesthetic, cool and clean”. But then my mind drifted towards the ideas that earlier readings brought up, which were how future technology must think of human nature. It is not human nature to be so organized… Alright, well at least not my human nature.

I agree with Victor that the technology must be able to be a sort of extension of our own body and be able to use our senses in order to function. But then, would it not be extremely awkward and nonsensical to use one’s entire body when operating technology in public? I’m not thinking opening a door, but rather operating your own individual phones or computers.

Though, I do still agree in many ways with Victor when considering the future. Especially since that phone one of the men was holding looked extremely fragile. Victor also brought up some interesting points about different motions of the hands which may be more reasonable than using one’s whole body. Our fingers allow for discreet and private motions for complicated tasks, so rather than “using only our finger” we get to “use only our finger!”. But perhaps people will get accustomed to different motions as well. It is human nature to adapt…

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.

 

‘A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design’

This reading allowed me to learn a new term, “Picture Under Glass”. I think I’ve always taken for granted the technology that was offered to me and so whilst using my phone or my iPad, it didn’t really seem to me that I was “denying my hands what they do best”. After reading his argument, I could see where Victor was coming from – to look at the potential of human capabilities. Although I do think that he has a fair point, I wonder what could be some sort of technology that would be able to achieve that goal and make it interesting at the same time. I guess right now what everyone wants to see are those screens that come out of no-where that acts like a transparent iPad that you always see in movies.

‘‘Responses: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design’

Victor mentioned that he was interested in tools for creating and understanding and that “deep understanding requires active exploration” but I think that in this day and age, there is a general liking for items (especially electronic devices) to be smaller and easy to use – they are easily accessible. His definition of active exploration is being able to take full advantage of the body and mind but as I hinted at in my previous response (up top), I still question how practical that would be.

I appreciated the question on whether Victor was advocating for further use of the stylus, physical keyboard, sticks and rocks. He answered that he was not, that he was advocating for a dynamic medium to see, feel and manipulate things. I wish Victor went further into explaining what he meant by this dynamic medium, although it was a ‘rant’ and there was a point in him providing no solution, I was hoping he could still provide some sort of example for greater understanding of his argument. I also found Victor’s view on “Waving My Hands In The Air” interesting, he didn’t find it positive as it throws off one’s proprioceptive senses. Lastly, I found the “finger-blind” comment interesting as I have noticed people believe in the intelligence of the human species when they see scenarios such as little kids playing with an iPad. They view the action with a sense of pride. However, if we don’t use our fingers in childhood, the rich network of nerves become impoverished which actually has an impact on one’s development. Intelligence can be misused in so many ways.

Victor makes a compelling argument on how the central component of interactive future are hands. I had never considered his claim on how most future interaction concepts completely ignore the use of hands, which feel and manipulate things. I took my hands for granted when considering interactive design, and didn’t realise the potential they hold to revolutionise interactive design. The debate on whether to get rid of tactile for the visual was fascinating. There is so much information that the senses in our hands and fingertips receive, I am curious as to how we came to the stage where we began to aim for a “less dynamic” medium. One of my favourite quotes from Victor that accurately summarises his argument is, “claiming that Pictures Under Glass is the future of interaction is like claiming that black-and-white is the future of photography”.

To me, A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design, changed my perception on the future of handheld devices. I myself had the vision of the, “Pictures Under Glass” as the future of technology.

As the author analyzed everyday objects that we use and emphasized on how we overlook the complexities in them, I was surprised with my ignorance. I since then have been observing everyday actions meticulously and realized really how complex they are.

Even though I learned a lot about the perception of people’s idea of the future of technology, the author hasn’t given a solution or a alternative way to manipulate technology other than using our fingers . The author does respond to this question by saying it is simply a rant. However, he himself said that he “…had the opportunity to design with real working prototypes…” so this would not simply  be a rant as he understands the problem and one would expect him to find a solution or at least suggest one in the article.