The Design of Everyday Things- Response

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.

‘Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better’ – Response

What Norman does in this reading is to emphasise the last line (like I mentioned in my previous response) of chapter 1 in The Design of Everyday Things, that clever design can minimise the paradox of technology.

What I find useful in this reading is that he goes back to look at the idea of aesthetic and how that relates to usability. Though in the last reading a lot of mention of the aesthetic side of design seemed to be considered to be bad or harmful to the utility of the object, here, Norman describes the opposite.

Perhaps controversially, I agree with both of his assertions for I believe that it really depends on the object that you are making and who is using it and for what purpose the object will serve. In this reading, he asserts that “good design means that beauty and usability are in balance”. Okay, but some objects don’t require the beauty aspect. But then again, there are other ones that require both beauty and usability for consumers to purchase them. I guess Norman, from the readings, gives us two perspectives on the design of objects, in which he recognises that psychology, whether of the inventor or for the user, plays a large role in dictating how effective the design of the object is.

‘The Psychopathology of Everyday Things’ – Response

This reading reminded me largely of some of the feedback that Aaron gave in class on our first assignments. He asked a lot of us in the class what the purposes of our projects were, and if there are any practical uses for them. As well (including during the feedback session for the second assignment), he also commented on the usefulness and how easy it was for the user to use that creation.

What the author of the text, Norman, does really well is in explaining why some designs, though may be aesthetically pleasing, do not work well. The author points to the ideas of visibility, affordance, conceptual and mental models, and mapping to explain the paradox of technology – which is the idea that “the same technology that simplifies life by providing more functions in each device also complicates life by making the device harder to learn and harder to use”. What I found interesting, in addition, was the author’s assertion that the paradox of technology “should never be used as an excuse for poor design”.

For me, the last line of the chapter, “added complexity and difficulty cannot be avoided when functions are added, but with clever design, they can be minimised”, is the essential takeaway from this reading. From Aaron’s feedback, I have already started to think about all my projects in the sense that they could provide a practical use (in such a way that a product could actually be developed, produced, and sold). The reading emphasised this mindset and consolidated the idea that there is a need for good designs.

“There Are No Electrons” Reading

I absolutely loved this reading. When I joined this course I was extremely confused by the overall concept of electricity. We discussed so many terms such as voltage, current and power but I still didn’t have a holistic understanding of the terms beyond its textbook definitions. Electricity in general always confused me as well, it appeared like such an intangible subject that I didn’t know what to do with just having a textbook definition of it. Not only did the author make the subject extremely relatable and understandable, he went further to question the concept of the electron theory, or what really holds protons together in a nucleus. I appreciated his questioning and sort of rebellion towards the current scientific understanding of electricity. Also, as strange as his “dreams”, or creative stories were, it offered a brilliant, relatable point of view. I found his writing questionable initially and undermined the value of what he had to say, but after reading the “The Creative Use of Jargon” I could understand why he was writing in an un-scholarly way. I was also deviated by the length of the text, and perceived it as almost a burden. However, it’s one of the only science readings that I understood holistically and enjoyed. He did a fantastic job of making the material so tangible and approachable.

“The Art of Interactive Design” Reading

I didn’t realise how overused and misunderstood the term interactivity was until I read this text. At one point I did wonder whether the author was maybe over-complicating the definition of interactivity and making it more complex and unavailable than it has been for an element of exclusivity. Nonetheless, he stated excellent points and revealed distinctions that I would not have thought of. One of my favourite points was on the subjectivity of interactivity. He gave an example that when the refrigerator door opens, a light turns on. Though some people will not be entertained by this game, small children find the refrigerator light more entertaining and interactive. Subsequently, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, does interactivity exist in the eye of the interactor? I also liked how instead of referring to interactivity as a black or white subject (ex. there is either interactivity or no interactivity), he explained it as a subject with relative measures (ex. high interactivity or low interactivity). My favourite part was when he made distinctions between interactivity, intense reaction, and participation, as I always saw blurred lines within those definitions. I also appreciated the author’s humbleness in terms of admitting that the idea of interactivity is too complex to fit some reduced, limited defition, and therefore the definition may not be appropriate. At one point I started to question as to why it feels like we are aiming for interactivity, what is so special about it? Why is it better than intense reaction or participation? The author did not say explicitly it was any better, but he did imply it was. For instance, when he stated that smaller class sizes increase interactivity between student and teacher, and the student-to-teacher ratio is one of the best simple indicators of the quality of a school, he implied an increase in quality can be achieved through interaction. Nonetheless, it was a fascinating text to read.

“Jump to Universality” Reading

I found the examples that Deutsch used in the text to be fascinating, as I had never perceived, for instance, language and the numeric system in such a way. The explanation for some examples were difficult to comprehend. For instance, when discussing language he claimed “a rule works by exploiting regularities in the language, it implicitly encodes those regularities, and so contains more knowledge than the list.” What did he mean by “exploiting regularities” and “implicitly encoding”? Some ideas were hard to comprehend because he communicated in such abstract terms, not always with further explanation. I found the general, overall message to be extremely interesting. How small changes in a system to meet a narrow purpose happened to contribute to the universality of something, without intentionally meaning to contribute to universality. I always thought universality was intentional. Instead, I learnt we didn’t achieve universality by trying to deliberately make something universal. It was interesting how he offered a very limited explanation for why communities didn’t attempt to reach universality earlier, why they were avoiding universality on purpose. The one explanation that stood out to me from the few was the fact that the communities’ livelihood would be threatened by a system that was too easy to learn. Perhaps the increase in trust, or the colonisation and globalisation of the world, makes it less threatening to aspire for universality.

Assignment 1 & 2

  1. I first started off with plugging jumper wires into the ground and 5V input on the RedBoard to the power and ground column on the breadboard. Vittoria taught me a neat trick, twirling wires together in order to keep the board neat and clean.

2) I tried to test if the LED pin would light up if I put the two jumper wires against a conductive material (in this case, I made the jumper wires touch one another), and it did successfully.

3) I decided to go on with my idea, which was that whenever I opened or closed a book, the light would switch on or off. I decided to tape the jumper wires to small conductive sheets, and then tape them on the pages, as demonstrated below. When the book is closed, the lights would turn on, and when the book is open, the lights would turn off.

However, I found my idea to be slightly useless. Firstly, the conductive sheets were only on the first two pages. What if the reader opened another page? Nothing would happen with the LED light. Also, a LED indicator of when the book is open or closed essentially has no purpose as my hands can also indicate when the book is open or closed. After talking to Professor Aaron about my idea, he suggested that I create a reading lamp that turns on when the book is open, and turns off when the book is closed.

4) In order to execute this plan, I decided to create two bookmarks covered in conductive material. One is called a bookmark, while the other is called a lamp switch bookmark. The bookmark is placed on whichever page the reader is on, and the lamp switch bookmark is placed on the original bookmark when an individual is reading. When an individual is not reading, the lamp switch bookmark must be set on a different page so the conductive material does not touch and the LED doesn’t light up.

a) b)

c)

(Bookmark and lamp switch bookmark making contact with one another so the LED lights up)

What was problematic with this plan was that it did not meet the hands-free requirement that was asked for this assignment. I needed another way of making the LED light up when the book was open.

5) Before I explain what I did in order to make the LED light up when the book was open, it would be helpful to take a look at the images:

a)

b)

c)

I changed the position of the bookmarks into a landscape position and put them on top of the novel, near the spine of the book. Subsequently, when the book is closed the conductive material does not touch. When the book is open, the conductive material makes contact and the LED lights up. A possible issue with this design may be the storage of the book. The bookmarks add extra length to the novel, therefore it may have trouble sitting on a shelf. Also, the jumper wires were quite short and therefore it was challenging to actually test whether the concept worked or not. Unfortunately the image couldn’t capture the LED light on while the novel was open, but it does work.

Assignment 2

Adding to my project from last week, I tried to give it a purpose and thought that it could be turned into a game in which you step on the semi-cylinder to make the ball jump and land on the aluminium foil on the other side of the box. I have used the Arduino to make the LED light up if the tennis ball touches the aluminium foil exactly and stay lit until the ball slides back down and touches the foil at the starting point.

Here is the code that I used: https://gist.github.com/yhk343/91b72544f0e0a46444641a15c4de6d88

The Jump to Universality – Response

‘A small change in a system to meet a parochial purpose just happened to make the system universal as well.’

This sentence especially memorable for me because I had always wondered how intelligent the people that developed the universal ideas in the ancient times must have been and whether they expected us, people living in 2018, to continue to use those ideas. To find out that it was not in their intentions to create a system fit for everyone across all cultures and time is a little disappointing but I think that makes a lot more sense.

I also liked the examples the writer used to explain symbols, ‘sun’ and ‘tree’, because although no puns intended, I thought it was quite clever when ‘treason’ came up as the example for the limitations of symbols as I had assumed that ‘sun’ and ‘tree’ were random examples.

Week 2 Project: tic tack toe

My goal with this project was to create a light-up version of tick tack toe, where a light would display whenever a piece was placed and display the lights for the winning set at the end. Making the physical board was not too much of an issue, and wiring appeared to go well, but after only a small amount of testing I realized that my design was fundamentally flawed.

<iframe allowFullScreen frameborder=”0″ height=”564″ mozallowfullscreen src=”https://player.vimeo.com/video/254331930″ webkitAllowFullScreen width=”640″></iframe>

(This video was taken at an early stage and simply shows that the program logic could accurately store and use my switches, while simultaneously powering the light on the same circuit)

I was attempting to complete the project with 9/10 pins, which did not work for the simple reason that current flows between two arduino pins set to  output at the same level if connected. My design was to have a single output pin that provided 5 v to 9 parallel series. Each series contained a switch and an LED bulb, and then ended in an arduino pin with pulldown to ground. The idea was the the receiving pin would, upon receiving a signal, output the same voltage as the main pin, and so set the voltage drop over the circuit to zero. Unfortunately, this is not a function arduino is capable of from what I could determine. The issue was not the fact that the circuit was still connected to ground, as the LEDs were far to bright to be in series with a 10k resistor. (The version I have described above is not the very first design, it is simpler and more elegant, and does not require that the lights be able to function with current flow from either direction).

To make the circuits work with an arduino I separated each of the 9 parallel circuits and gave them their own power pin, all of which were initiated to on. Now each light would turn on when the corresponding piece was placed, and at the end of the game when a winning line was determined only the LEDs that belonged to that line would keep their power, the rest would be shut off. This design works from an electronics perspective, though the game logic of my software contains bugs. Specifically, the winning line is improperly identified. However, all the lights during the game work correctly, and when the game detects a winning line, even though it is incorrect, it propagates that error correctly into a single line of powered lights. I am content at the moment, however, since both the game lights and the winning lights work correctly, it is only the game logic the determines which lights are part of the winning line that is bugged.

int board[9] = { -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1};
int mapping[9] = {11, 12, A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, 13};
//int winners[3] = { -1, -1, -1};
int winners[3] = {6, 7, 8};
int turn = 0;
void setup() {
  // put your setup code here, to run once:
  initialize();
}
void loop() {
  // put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
  //displayWinner();
  play();
  //initialize();
}
void initialize() {
  for (int i = 0; i <= 8; i++) {
    pinMode(i + 2, INPUT);
    pinMode(mapping[i], OUTPUT);
    digitalWrite(mapping[i], HIGH);
  }
  pinMode(1, OUTPUT);
  digitalWrite(1, LOW);
  //pinMode(13, OUTPUT);
  //digitalWrite(13, HIGH);
  //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
}
void play () {
  boolean done = false;
  while (!done) {
    boolean piece_played = false;
    int temp = -1;
    //turn++;
    //turn= turn%2;
    while (temp == -1) {
      for (int i = 0; i <= 8; i++) {
        if ((digitalRead(i + 2) == true) && (board[i] == -1)) {
          temp = i;
          board[i] = turn;
          break;
        }
      }
    }
    done = checkWin(temp, turn);
    //    if(done){
    //      digitalWrite(1,HIGH);
    //    }
    delay(400);
    //    pinMode(temp + 2, OUTPUT);
    //    digitalWrite(temp + 2, LOW);
    digitalWrite(mapping[temp + 2], HIGH);
  }
  displayWinner();
}
boolean checkWin(int i, int turn) {
  //  digitalWrite(1, HIGH);
  //  delay(500);
  //board[i] = turn;
  //return false;
  if (i == 4) {
    if (board[0] == board[4] == board[6]) {
      int temp[3] = {0, 4, 6};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
    if (board[2] == board[4] == board[8]) {
      int temp[3] = {2, 4, 8};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
  }
  if (i / 3 == 0) {
    if (board[0] == board[1] == board[2]) {
      int temp[3] = {0, 1, 2};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
  }
  if (i / 3 == 1) {
    if (board[3] == board[4] == board[5]) {
      int temp[3] = {3, 4, 5};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
  }
  if (i / 3 == 2) {
    if (board[6] == board[7] == board[8]) {
      int temp[3] = {0, 1, 2};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
  }
  //  digitalWrite(1, HIGH);
  //  delay(500);
  if (i % 3 == 0) {
    //digitalWrite(1, HIGH);
    if (board[0] == board[3] == board[6]) {
      int temp[3] = {0, 3, 6};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      //digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
      return true;
    }
  }
  if (i % 3 == 1) {
    if (board[1] == board[4] == board[7]) {
      int temp[3] = {1, 4, 7};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      return true;
    }
  }
  if (i % 3 == 2) {
    if (board[2] == board[5] == board[8]) {
      int temp[3] = {2, 5, 8};
      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
        winners[j] = temp[j];
      }
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
}
void displayWinner() {
  initialize();
  digitalWrite(1, HIGH);
  //  digitalWrite(13,LOW);
  //  for(int i=0; i<3; i++){
  //    digitalWrite(mapping[winners[i]],HIGH);
  //  }
  //  while(true){
  //    delay(1);
  //  }
  for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
    int in = false;
    for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
      if (i == winners[j]) {
        in = true;
      }
    }
    if (!in) {
      digitalWrite(mapping[i], LOW);
    }
  }
  delay(5000);
}

To continue this project I would fix the bug in the code, and then improve the mechanical parts of the board, namely make pieces to be played and improve the sensitivity of the switches, and finally affix everything so it is not constantly falling apart. There are also a number of ways in which the game will behave oddly, for example if played too quickly, and so I might adjust for those oddities.