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:

The new and improved blowback machine, now with twice the interactivity!!!

So initially with the first blowback machine, I had a problem that you needed to blow on it very hard in order to keep the aluminum foil sheets in contact long enough for the fan DC motor to turn on. To fix that, I separated the switch circuit and the motor circuit, and used the Arduino to signal the motor to turn on for 2 seconds as soon as contact between the sheets is made. In addition, I wired the motor properly with a separate power source going through a transistor in order to prevent possible damage to the Arduino.

Now the Interactivity!!

So initially, I wanted add speakers to the circuit that plays the sound of blowing air when the DC motor turns on. So I did some research, and found out that the most convenient way would have been with an Arduino shield that has space for an SD card. I didn’t have that, but I found another way to play sound through Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), the same technology that allows you to dim an LED. So I got to testing I ran into a few problems. PWM is extremely limiting, as in it could only play 8-bit sounds, therefore I couldn’t have played the sound of blowing. Which I could’ve worked through, if it actually worked. I tried multiple speakers and multiple wiring set ups, but I could not get it to work. So I moved on.

Then I thought, what if people wanted to practice blowing at things, without the consequences of having the rage of the fan! So I added a button to enable or disable fan responsiveness, with an LED to indicate if the fan is going to blow back or not in response to you blowing.

code :

int motorPin = 7;
int circuitPin = 2;
int buttonPin = 8;
int ledPin = 13;
bool fanOperation = false;
bool previousButtonState = false;

void setup() {
  // put your setup code here, to run once:
  pinMode(motorPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(circuitPin, INPUT);
  pinMode(buttonPin, INPUT);
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
  Serial.begin(9600);
}


void loop() {
  // put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
  int x = digitalRead(circuitPin);
  bool buttonState = digitalRead(buttonPin);
  Serial.println(fanOperation);
  if (buttonState) {
    if (!previousButtonState) {
      fanOperation = !fanOperation;
    } 
  }
  if (fanOperation) {
    digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
    if (x) {
    digitalWrite(motorPin, HIGH);
    delay(2000);
    digitalWrite(motorPin, LOW);
    delay(500);
    } 
  } if (!fanOperation){
    digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
  }
  
  previousButtonState = buttonState;
}

Video:

I thought this reading is incredibly interesting and thought provoking. It also made me realize the existence of these little ‘glitches in the matrix’, where things are happening out of the time that you would typically associate with them. Let me explain. For example, the system that the romans developed for the adding up their numerals, is exactly an algorithm that we would feed today’s computers. As another example, Alan Turing while developing the mathematical framework of general purpose computers, also developed Turing machines, which are theoretical general purpose computers that compute everything using the Unary system which is a very similar system to what the pre-historic farmers mentioned in the text used. Another thing I noticed throughout the reading is that the Author is desperate for the mathematicians and people he wrote about to make the jump to universality. I would argue that a lot of them didn’t need to, they developed number systems that were suitable for them, and didn’t need a universal number system.

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.

I would like to start by saying that I intensely disliked this piece. I acknowledge that this chapter was part of a 270+ page book, needless to say it was lengthy. But what I disliked about it was not the length, rather the buildup to a condensed conclusion. I personally did not like history class growing up nor do I like this type of ‘academic’ writing. I’d rather read about greenies than how numbers evolved. Reading this piece felt like a 35 page drumroll with a 7 page ‘badumtiss’. Though the theme of universality is important, I wonder whether it was important to tease the reader with the  idea of this person or that one ‘almost’ making ‘the jump’.

Perhaps I am being too judgmental due to personal factors like frustration or lack of patience. But I feel as though I could have read the last two pages and the summary at the end and had a discussion that was more fruitful than the other 40 pages.

When reading this definition of interactivity, I can easily see a modification of it that clarifies it some in my mind: “two actors alternatively reacting to each other”. This clearly requires a definition to react, but that is most obviously the same as what it replaced in the original definition, input, process, output. His list of things that are not interactive are simply things that are not reacting to the person he is describing as the other actor. The scale of interactivity then boils down to the complexity of the reactions, with a twist. The twist is that one of the actors n every situation he mentions is a person, and when the other is a machine, the main target of this analysis, it is only the complexity of the reactions from the perspective of the user that matters. This is where is interactive and interface designer seem to differ. The interface designer hides the “unnecessary” parts of the reaction, while the interactive one reveals as much as possible to emphasize the complexity. By the definitions that I am using the reasons the interactive approach are obvious: making the machines reaction seem more complex make it seem more interactive, and the users reaction to this additional information actually do increase the interactivity, at the cost of efficiency of the primary task. That is unless the primary task is to get the user to think. With our definitions this could be rephrased as increase the complexity of reaction from the human user, which is a clear consequence of increasing the reactivity of the machine, an makes clear, at least to me, what makes an experience interactive and why that might be valuable.

Not much of the information in this reading was new to me, but the analysis of it certainly was. The initial analysis of the development of written language makes a lot of sense to me, though I think he glossed over a more fundamental point, the universality of spoken language. Also, while any alphabet is universal in theory, no language currently used is completely described by its rules and alphabet in any concise way. This is actually an instance of a common theme throughout the reading, where the mechanisms to achieve universality are in place but unused.

I also find it odd that when describing a number of early steps on the way to universality, in each of the categories of numbers, computers, and life-replicators, he seems disappointed that the rest of the jump to universality was not made, even saying that Babbage “should” have made the jump. While I entirely see the point that he “could” have, there seem to be strong implications of a necessity of universality being developed as soon as possible that is never quite justified. There is certainly an advantage to making the jump, but I was never convinced that it is a necessity.

Though the author states that he believes in the fluidity of the importance of definitions, his entire piece is talking about his own definition of interactivity. Therefore, my first impression is that the argument was going to be ‘wishy-washy’, not really adhering to his supposed definition of interactivity and thus making the whole argument weak. I was pleasantly surprised to not be extremely affected by his detachment from the term ‘definition’. What Chris Crawford describes seems to be more a classification and identification system rather than a concrete definition which in turn makes it more useful and in my opinion more easily understood. Especially when he concludes that this system was open to change as time progresses.

The piece itself was enjoyable as it seemed to be half scholarly argument and half extremely relatable to everyday situations. Most of his analogies made me chuckle and say “haha, yeah, true true”. Though I do not agree with the one about how the musicians do not interact with the dancing audience, what about when musician is asked for an encore or when they are able to change a set list in accordance to how the audience is reacting to the songs? Nevertheless, this relation to the everyday made his system easily understandable.

The first time I ever encountered the word ‘Interactive Media’ was during my Candidate Weekend. I was at the Farewell Dinner at Park Hyatt and Pierre came and sat at my table because all the other tables were full. While having dinner, he talked about how the style of writing has changed as what people read changed (Twitter, Facebook etc.) and many other things that I found so fascinating at the time despite the absence of speaking on our – all the candidates at the table – side other than the ‘deeply-considered “Yup”‘. Although I don’t remember a lot of the things that were said that night, I remember deciding that I want to take a course in IM if I get in.

The reading made me really nod when the writer mentioned that people often mistake reaction for interaction because I am/was definitely one of them. The example of plays especially talked to me because I have a high school friend who now studies acting at Tisch. She used to tell me all the time how acting is an interactive process  –  it’s a process in which the actors and the audience breathe and perform together. I never dared to argue with her but still sometimes wondered how interactive it actually is. Not to put her down or prove her wrong, but now when she gives me the same lecture again, I can smile to myself as I now know that this smart person who wrote a book on interactivity has asked the same question.