Update - Sounds and Sound Interaction

We've combined the results of last time's competition, taking ideas from the other teams into one idea.

1. Approaching a Module. If someone is near a module, or in between two, a range finder will detect them and activate a chime sound to indicate that the module can be interacted with and involves sound. Similarly, if the range finder is activated but none of the sensors have been activated in a certain amount of time the chime sound will again play, beckoning people to come interact with it.

2. Under the arch. We take Team 5's concept of combining range finders with IR pairs in order to measure the height at which the IR beam was broken. One instrument will have three pitches or note combinations staggered along the height of the angle under the arch. If the beam is broken higher up, the higher note combination will be played and vice versa.

3. Sensor Interaction. As we described last time, multiple sensor activation is rewarded, encouraging community participation. The sensors will represent one of 4-5 instruments. When one is activated alone, it will play a short rhythm or beat. If 2 are activated, a short song will play involving the instruments of those two sensors. As more sensors are activated at the same time, a richer, more complicated song will play. It becomes a challenge for interactors to find the hidden songs in the module (3-4 perhaps). In order to allow a person interacting alone to find the songs, there will be a small time window (perhaps 1-3 seconds) for other sensors to be activated once one sensor is activated and then trigger a song.

*UPDATE*
After looking at the physical construction of the modules, it seems to make more sense to simply put an IR pair across the underside. When the IR beam is broken, a sound should be triggered.

Progress Report Week 9

The idea:

Use photo resistors to play sounds such that, when a photo resistor is covered, a sound plays once, and when multiple resistors are covered a different sound loops.

The design:

Our original idea last week was to use two arduino boards linked together, one connected to all of the photo resistors and the other connected to the wave shield. We thought that we would need two arduinos because it was our understanding that the wave sheild would occupy all but 3 or 4 of the pins on the arduino. To our delight, the wave shield actually left us with access to 10 analog pins, and because of this we only needed one arduino board to accomplish our task.

The Prototype:

Wave Shield

We first had to build the wave shield. This was mostly done by Anna. The construction went smoothly without any soldering mistakes. After the wave shield was constructed, we attached it to the arduino and soldered it into place. With the wave shield firmly attached to the arduino we had to find an SD card that we could use with the card. The SD card ended up being one of the more problematic aspects of the prototype, and we were confused as to why one was not included with the technology kit. Luckily one of our team members had a mircoSD card and adapter (to regular SD size) that we could load wav files onto. The SD card had to be formatted to FAT16, which required a bit of a work around on a mac (View complete process here). With a properly formatted Card, we were able to run the example arduino code and hear our audio files through the wave shield!

Photo Resistors

Our next task was to construct a circuit with a photo resistor that we could use to call the play() function on the wave shield. It took us some time to remember how to correctly organize all of the resistors and photocells and wires, but eventually we created a working circuit. From there we began to add conditional statements such that if the photocell circuit was being covered, it would play a sound. We were able to successfully connect the photocell to the play() function in the wave shield, and we then began to adapt the example wave shield code to play specific files from the SD card when a specific photocell was covered.

Problems

SD Card - We didn't have one in our Tech kit.

Our SD adapter frequently gives us the error that the card failed to initialize, we believe this is just a hardware error, because if we simply redeploy it will work.

Wires

Because the Wave shield has slots for wires to be soldered in place, it was fairly annoying to try and test with unsoldered wires. They kept popping out of their slots, and sometimes the connection was not reliable.

Headphones

We discovered that the original headphones we were using were broken, and had to switch to using earbuds.

The Working Prototype

Phase 2: Getting the sound to work...

This week we hashed out the digital interaction and got a sample working on our newly soldered wave shield-arduino sandwich. The soldering could be a bit tricky, but was overall a lot of fun. As far as programming, the wave shied site was incredibly helpful.


The photo above if from an initial try, but as of now we can activate two photoresistors independently. If - looking at the diagram below - you activate only photoresistor A, it will place its wav file. If you activate only photoresistor B, it will place its wav file. If both are activated together, the system will play and loop a wav file that is the combination of A and B's sounds. For example, if A is a trumpet melody and B is a drum beat, A-B will a trumpet-drum beat loop.
We are estimating approximately 8 photoresistors per module, so there will have to be a wav file for every distinct combination of 8.


Some possible issues we came across while testing:

• Cloudy Days. We noticed that the numbers output by the photoresistor changed a great deal when we closed the blinds, or the sun went away. This affected our parameters for when the sound should go off.
• Range of Photoresistors. We aren't sure of the maximum distance that will set off the resistors. Would a shadow from a few feet away do it? This might not be a problem, but something to investigate.

Progress Report Week 8

For this week, our team discussed how to design the digital interaction for the overall
piece, and how we could implement it. Below are our notes on the types of interactions and how
the interaction would work. Also below are several images of ways to help convey the digital
interactions to users. We also found a website with all the information we would need to
accomplish setting up parts of the digital aspect.

Range finders detect distance.

Use two arduinos on one module

Interaction scenarios:

Make an improvisation song

sitting on it and read (one noise attivation)

Marco Polo

Actions:

Running Past

Sitting

Crawling Under

Jump on/off

Records (a red circle with black hand on it)

Hanging

Use as a home base

Hit-it

Slide

Stand on

Walk towards it

Different sound for different range for range finders

Loops rhythm if 2 hands activated. ( Sound 1, Sound 2. Together = Sound 6)

Hold two hand prints and they repeat.

Hide handprints (Exploration)

Abstract Instrument (Travis’ idea)

Twister

“Play” Hand Print

Smear Hand with 3 photosensors

Temporary recording of the “song” or interaction. If you hit the “Play Hand” and hold it. Then you can activate more sensors and add to the existing beat, as long as the play hand is activated. If there are no prior activations, it should still play something (ga tech sound?). Maybe play back last 5 beats (to rep 4 fingers/ 1 thumb). Body Remixing. Encourages Community

About 6 hand prints per structure

Each hand print a different color

What kinds of sounds?

- Congo beats

- Nature sounds

- Digital sounds

- How far can you hear the sounds?

To accomplish building the digital aspect:

http://absences.sofianaudry.com/en/node/10

http://hacknmod.com/hack/how-to-connect-multiple-arduino-microcontrollers-using-i2c/

Progress Report Week 7

We've decided to put aside the idea of using LEDs in conjunction with sound for this project. After testing the plausibility of LEDs in a real world scenario, we found them to not be very noticeable, even in the shade. We feel that with the limited amount of time that we have for this project, our final product would be far more polished if we were to focus exclusively on the sound interaction with the piece. We can dedicate our time to creating a sound interaction that is inherently connected to the physical space as well as the physical interaction.

Parts List per Module : 127.76

Arduino Duemilonove

http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardDuemilanove

Cost: $29.00

# Needed: 1/arch = $29.00

Specs:

Operating Voltage 5V

Input Voltage (recommended) 7-12V

Input Voltage (limits)6-20V Digital I/O Pins14 (6 provide PWM output) Analog Input Pins6

DC Current per I/O Pin40 mA

DC Current for 3.3V Pin50 mA

Flash Memory 16 KB (ATmega168) or 32 KB (ATmega328),2 KB used by bootloader

SRAM1 KB (ATmega168) or 2 KB (ATmega328) EEPROM512 bytes (ATmega168) or 1 KB (ATmega328)

The board can operate on an external supply of 6 to 20 volts. If supplied with less than 7V, however, the 5V pin may supply less than five volts and the board may be unstable. If using more than 12V, the voltage regulator may overheat and damage the board. The recommended range is 7 to 12 volts.

IR Sensor/Emitter Sets

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=241

Cost: $1.76 (10-99 order)

# Needed: 4/arch = $7.04

Specs:

Description: Side-looking Infrared Emitters and IR Detectors. These simple devices operate at 940nm and work well for generic IR systems including remote control and touch-less object sensing. Using a simple ADC on any microcontroller will allow variable readings to be collected from the detector. The emitter is driven up to 50mA with a current limiting resistor as with any LED device. The detect is a NPN transistor that is biased by incoming IR light.

Photoresistor

Cost: $1.35 (10+)

# Needed: 1/arch = $1.35

Specs:

http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&pa=202438&productId=202438&keyCode=WSF&cid=GMC

PHOTOCELL,150 mW, 200 VPK, 3.6 Kohm

MAX LITE,0.3 Mohm MIN DARK

Speaker

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9151

Cost: $1.95

# Needed: 2/arch = $3.90

Specs:

Small Size

Power rating: 0.5W

Impedance: 8 ohm

Amp

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=320-214&source=googleps

Cost: $18

# Needed: 1/arch = $18

Specs:

500 mA ; 7.5 W ; 15V DC

Solar Cell

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=7840

Cost: $34.95

# Needed: 1/arch = $34.95

Specs:

2.5 Watts

Description: Packaged solar cell with barrel plug termination. This is a custom cell produced for SFE - not a small toy surplus item! This unit is rated for 8V open voltage and 310mA short circuit. We actually took a random unit outside and measured 9.15V open voltage and 280mA short circuit. Under ideal sun conditions (high-noon, clear sky) 310mA is very possible but will vary from cell to cell. We can even get 110mA from inside our office windows! Termination is a 5.5mm x 2.1mm barrel plug, center positive on a 2m cable. Monocrystalline high efficiency cells at 15-15.2%. Mates directly with many of our development boards. Unit has a clear epoxy resin coating with hard-board backing. Robust sealing for out door applications!
Dimensions: 7 x 4.5"

NiCd A Flat Top Battery A Nickel Cadmium Industrial Rechargeable Battery

http://www.batteriesplus.com/product/33221-NUN1400--AF-NiCd-A-Flat-Top-Battery/100093-1/102937-Industrial-Rechargeable-Cells/102949-Nickel-Cadmium/A.aspx

Cost: $4.19

# Needed: 8/arch = $33.52

Specs: A Nickel Cadmium Industrial Rechargeable Battery NiCd A Flat Top Battery NUN1400-AF. Top quality cells make top quality batteries. Get the right cell and have one of our Battery Experts assemble a pack to power your application. Talk to a Battery Expert at one of our stores regarding battery assembly and custom design capabilities using NiCd or NiMH cells.

• Item number: NUN1400-AF

• Weight: 0.1000 lbs

• Voltage: 1.2V

• Capacity: 1400MAH

• Primary Applications: Battery pack assembly, industrial use and more

Progress Report Week 6

Reevaluation

After last week's class, where it was decided that the class would be merging the concepts from teams 2, 4 (us), and 7. We had to reevaluate our ideas about how we wanted people to interact with the structure. We broke down our design into the basic concepts that we liked, and the problems that had arisen.

What we liked:

1) An inviting play-space that encouraged people to come closer and touch

2) Smooth arches that evoked the idea of motion

3) A digital interaction that was intrinsic to the physical structure

Problems

1) Looked out of place at the installation site ("dropped in")

2) Not accessible to wheelchairs

3) Not 'artistic' enough

It was said last week that the main appeal of team two, which all groups should strive for was the sinusoidal look of the structures when viewed from the side. To whit, we have decided to nix a few of our original ideas to better suit the professor's goals.

Changes

1) Double Arches

One of the strongest aspects of our original design was the piggy-backing arches, which afforded sitting (in two orientations), climbing, and tunneling. Unfortunately when viewed from the side, the double arches did not convey the sense of smooth flow that is associated with a sinusoidal wave. We are adopting Team 7's approach of having individual arches arranged in a staggered line.

2) Sensors

We are actually still going to be using 8 pressure sensors in our new concept, but they will be used in conjunction with IR sensors.

New Concept

Our new concept still centers around the physical embodiment of a song, but this time we are approaching it in a way that will be more recognizable. We are expanding on Team 3's idea to use the structure as a beat synthesizer. There will be a set of 16 fiberglass arches, 8 large arches (5' tall) and 8 small arches (2.5' tall). Each arch will represent a percussive beat that is played in sequence.

How it works

Each arch will come equipped with a speaker to play the sound clip associated with that arch. Each arch has an Arduino controller board installed into the underside of the arch. A master Arduino controller will send out commands to the individual arches' control boards in a timed sequence; the individual boards will then check to see if the sensor on their arch is being triggered. If the sensor on that arch is being triggered, the board will produce the percussive sound associated with that arch out of the speaker located on that arch. In this manner, if all of the arches are being triggered, a percussive beat will play in time down the line of arches, creating a rhythm.

The interaction

So assuage some of the concerns from our last iteration, we have added a new method of interaction. In the larger arches, we will be placing two sets of IR sensors on the inside of the arches. These will be positioned such that the beams travel horizontally through the arch. One IR sensor will be positioned roughly a foot of the ground; this sensor is connected to the percussive beat. When the master controller sends out a check signal to the larger arches, the controller board will check to see if the lower IR beam is being disrupted, if so, it will play a percussive sound. The upper IR beam is dedicated to an entirely separate sound, a melodious sound. Whenever the user interrupts the top IR beam, the melodious tone will play out of a second speaker in the arch. This allows users to create their own distinctive melodies, and also allows people in wheelchairs to interact with the structure. In the smaller arches, there will still be a pressure sensor, so that when people sit on the arch, it produces a beat at that arch in time with the percussion.

There would also be a light display on the underside of the arches to give a visual sense of the rhythm. Each module would be painted a different color, and there would be sixteen rows of LEDs of corresponding colors. Whenever a beat is triggered, the corresponding LEDs on all sets of arches would light up, giving an overview of the rhythm through a visual medium.

Design

Sensors

1) The IR sensors would obviously be built into the fiberglass on the sides of the arch.

2) The pressure sensors would be built into the top of the smaller arch, in the form of a smaller, imbedded strip on a spring that spans the width of the arch.

Lights

1) In the larger arches, there would be sixteen rows of 4 LEDs spanning the underside of the arch. Each row corresponding to one of the arches in the sequence.

2) In the smaller arches, 8 rows of LEDs (2 each) would span the underside of the arch, with the LEDS near the edges

Solar Panels

1) We are going to be using organic solar panels, because of their low cost and flexibility, which would allow them to be installed on a curved surface.

2) The solar panels will be installed on the tops of all the arches

Controller Boards

1) The Arduino control boards will be installed on the underside of the arches

Wiring

1) The wiring will be run on the underside of the arches, with outlets to connect the arches together at the bottom edges of the arches.

Alternatives

We also came up with the idea of using natural sunlight as a method of triggering sounds. The design is based around using reflective surfaces to bounce natural sunlight into different light sensors and trigger a sound to play (once) when the light reaches a certain threshold. In this way, walking around the structures would generate a song from the different modules. The sun itself would also act as performer, as the light patterns would change throughout the day, triggering different tones to play, behaving much like an auditory clock. We would also use the reflections of the sun to paint different patterns of light onto the ground.

Redesign I

We've settled on a revision of both physical structure and digital components. Understanding the digital aspects and interactions afforded were necessary to making design decisions about the structure.

Overall Concept
The playground itself is a musical instrument that can be interacted with to simultaneously make auditory and visual melodies. The smaller arch in our double arch module will serve as an input equipped with pressure sensors and some lights. It will be thicker to accommodate the electrical equipment. The underside of the larger arch will contain many lights. When someone activates the pressure sensor (hitting, standing, sitting on it), the led lights become activated along with a particular sound. The sound produced will be mapped to the size of the structure (larger arches or slides might have lower sounds) and also relative to the structures next to it. Structures in close proximity will be on similar scales or chords so that activating them in unison will still produce a pleasant sound.

Figure 1. Digital components of one module

Figure 2. High level view of playground

Figure 2 above illustrates the 4 sections of our redesign. Each black "triangle" represents a section of double-arch modules (Figure 1) placed side by side. There are three distinct pods where interactors can, for example, sit, climb, slide and tunnel. Interactors can also see others playing on the other pods. At the same time, the pods flow into each other, encouraging movement. The center structure functions as a visually aesthetic piece to sit on and perhaps drum. Each pod is wired to produce different kinds of sounds (percussion and melodious) when the pressure sensors are activated.

At night, the lights under the larger arches become activated to glow in a pattern. If interactors set off the sensors in time with the glowing of the light, they will produce a harmonious melody. It is a visual and physical representation of a song that is constantly going on.

During the day, the lights are less visible, but setting off the sensors will still afford making harmonious sounds without the scaffolding of the lights. The structure can be hit on the small-arch side to set off lights under the larger arch, which when arranged closely form a tunnel.

Weekly Progress Report #3 - Physical Model

Progress Report - Week 4

Phase 1 complete

The professors have decided that our concept was the best physical design of the competition, but that Team 2 had a better digital concept. After a brief pause for celebration, we got back to the grindstone, examining our digital design and how it can be improved.

Physical Design

Mesh

One design aspect that we pushed aside for phase 1 was the idea of spanning mesh between some of the modules. This would increase the surface area of our play-space, and would also reduce the costs for the physical construction. We play to reevaluate the potential of mesh in our concept.

We also plan to refine the overall concept and explore that ways in which the modules can be arranged.

Digital Design

One of the weaknesses of our proposal was that the digital interaction was not extrinsic to the physical interaction. It was possible to create games with lights, but it was an arbitrary interaction with the structure. In light of this we are brainstorming on several possibilities for alternative interactions which are more cohesive to the physical structure and the physical play.

Sound

Group 2's concept involved pressure sensors that would cause a tone to play when pressure was placed on the structure. We believe that this design has some major flaws: a) The sound would be annoying to any sedentary person, rendering the space useless as a place to rest; and b) The constant tone would require a large amount of power. We have devised some ideas that will enhance the interaction of sound, without the annoyances.

Ideas:

1) Have each module produce a tone on impact, but not a sustained sound while pressure is applied.

2) Have each individual module produce a unique note

3) Have one side of the play-space produce melodic tones, and rhythmic drum beats on the other side

4) Build physical drums (out of acrylic) into the arches

5) Use the energy from the impact to power to speakers

Lights

Having an art installation that is interactive on multiple levels is something that really appeals to us, so we would like to still incorporate lights into our design, and have them used in conjunction with the speakers.

Ideas:

1) Light up LEDs at the same time sound plays on each module

2) Light up other modules in chords, to suggest to children (and adults) that music can be made

3) Light up LEDs in a pattern that, if performed, would produce a song

These are just our preliminary brainstorming ideas before going into group discussion in class. We are looking forward to refining our concept, and bringing our ideas to fruition.

Weekly Update #3 - Conceptual Design Process

The last couple weeks can be characterized by one word: iteration. In preparation for this week's design competition, each of us has been actively mocking up designs and making models, both physical and digital. You can see the fruits of our labor in the above poster, but it was quite the process getting there. Early last week we were still toggling between geometric themes but ultimately - based on feedback from the one-minute madness - decided to focus on the arch and see what we could come up with. After an inspired meeting last Thursday, we came up with an idea involving arches, climbing, and mesh. Here are some images from the first iteration:
































After considering our budget and resources further - and after feedback from Claudia discouraging the use of mesh - we decided to simplify even more and focus on just a few kinds of arches. This would reduce the number of molds we would need to make. Jonathan's class workshop about fiberglass was key in guiding us toward this decision. Here are some images from our next iteration:






At this point, we knew what kind of shapes we were using and basic interactions - arches to form slides, climbing, crawling through tunnels - but had not finalized on a technology concept. After much back and forth discussions, we ultimately decided on putting infrared sensors into the climbing holes that would activate LED lights to turn on or off. This would be visible from beneath the arches or, since the LEDs would be in the holes, fairly visible from the outside. We thought this could encourage individual and group light games and a form of "light graffiti".

From there, we delegated tasks. We had a clear idea of the kind of shapes we were working with and needed to complete the other components for the design competition. Each of us took a role: poster design, poster text, budget, concept finalization, and model construction. We really needed to know the budget to see just how much would be possible for 24 modules and whether we needed to adapt the design. We came back together and discussed the budget, determining would go over at about $4,800. However, given our constraints for 24 modules, we were uncomfortable reducing our design, or buying less fiberglass and weakening the structure. Ultimately, we decided to create two budgets, one ideal and the other reduced. Some images from iteration 3, the final iteration before the competition:



Scroll back to the top to see the final design poster.

One thing we were proud of was that it was really everyone's input that contributed to the final design. Go Team NameTeam!

Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, Chapters IX & X

In Chapter 9, Hall starts by discussing the senses, that is, the “physiological base shared by all human beings.” After giving caution as to how best to properly organize/translate the various categories that can come out of analyzing the relation of the senses with culture.
Later on in the chapter, Hall makes the interesting assertion that “whenever people talk, they supply only part of the message. The rest is filled in by the listener.” I found that to be intriguing. In other words, it is as though there is much interpretation that goes on in our daily lives that involves what I would call “faith”, or more commonly, “trust”.
As Hall continues his discourse on fixed-feature space and architecture, he makes a very interesting comment on people who live “two lives”: “I have observed that many men have two or more distinct personalities, one for business and one for the home. The separation of the office and home in these instances helps to keep the two often incompatible personalities from conflicting…” I found this to be a very interesting note. How long can a double-life society thrive? Is architecture really the “cure” for taming humans to cope with our various lives?
Later, Hall makes another interesting note when he critiques modern day architecture/construction trends: “We are building huge apartment houses and mammoth office buildings with no understanding of the needs of the occupants.” To me, this note only further points out the inhumanity of the typical corporate America form of business. There is just something more natural about more traditional blue collar jobs e.g. farming, building with your own two hands, etc.
Towards the end of the chapter, Hall provides numerous pictures of various social interactions, architectural setups and styles, etc. He made an interesting assertion when he pointed out that “the French tendency to pack together…suggest the resulting high sensory involvement evident in many aspects of French life.”
The end of the chapter involves a discussion on “semifixed feature space”, which as I understand, is basically the concept of sociofugal and sociopetal spaces; that is to say that semifixed feature space involves the study of spaces that are attractive for social interaction or not.
Chapter 10 more specifically delves into a study of how people personally operate with spaces. In other words, I suppose it’s more of a personal look at spaces than Chapter 9. Hall divides the “distances of man” into 4 categories (which he had simplified from his original, overly complex 8 categories): intimate, personal, social, and public. Hall then proceeds to elaborate upon each of these categories with much precision. He even enumerates various distances for each categories as well as the biological senses involved, etc. Hall says that humans, like the rest of the animals, exhibit territoriality. He notes that his 4-part classification is based upon observation.
Hall says that “The ability to recognize these various zones of involvement…has now become extremely important. The world’s populations are crowding into cities…” While I find that Hall lists some interesting points about human space, I feel that there are more worthwhile issues with which to be concerned. To classify the recognition of these zones as being “extremely important” is, in my opinion, a little bit overkill. Nevertheless, city planners, etc. who take these sorts of zones studies into account will most likely design better cities.

Communicating With Our Machines Review

This particular reading discusses several ways to incorporate a communication between the
user and a machine when designing any kind of product. The first note that the author talks about
is the importance of feedback from the machine to the operator. The reading states that the feedback
of any machine is important to allow the user if the machine is working as it should. One example
of the importance of feedback would be the revving of a car engine when you insert and turn
the ignition key. The revving of the engine indicates to the driver that his/her car is in working
condition. However, this example goes against one of the author's beliefs about feedback. The author
believes that feedback is important when operating or interacting with anything, however, the feedback
should be relayed through some ambient medium, as opposed to the loud revving of the car engine
on start up.

The next concept that the reading discusses is the concept of implementing natural and deliberate signals
to the user of any product. Whether the communication is between two or more people, or a person and a
machine, the signals that are used to indicate methods of use must be carried out in a clear, calm, and
naturally feeling manner so as to avoid confusion and any negative outcomes. One example the author uses
to demonstrate this is the use of one person's hands to signal a driver on how to navigate his car into a difficult
parking space. In the example, the hand motions and signals are clear and fluid, therefore the driver can
easily understand what to do in order to make his car fit into the space. To work in conjunction with this concept, the author then mentions the concept of natural mapping of components to a device. The example
used to clarify natural mapping are the locations of the stove top dials. The reading mentions how the four
tops of the stove are arranged as the corners to a square or rectangular shape, however the dials to turn on
each top's gas is arranged in a straight line. Because of this, each dial has to have a label indicating which top
it turns on. However, the author believes that if the dials were arranged in the same shape as the tops, the
labels would become unnecessary.

The final point that the author mentions involves six basic principles to be aware of when designing any kind
of product. The six points are as follows:
1) Provide rich, complex, and natural signals for communication

2) Be predictable

3) Provide a good conceptual model

4) Make the output understandable

5) Provide continual awareness, without annoyance

6) Exploit natural mappings to make interactions understandable and effective
I believe that we can apply most of these six concepts into our designs for our class project.

Dourish: Where the Action is (ch6, Moving Toward Design)

One of the first points Dourish makes is that “moving from theory back to design is a hard transition.” He makes the point that “theory and design are fundamentally different sorts of activities, carried out by different people with different training and presented to different audiences.” Then, after giving a few examples to support his theory, he begins to provide support for his theory that “social and tangible computing share a common foundation in embodied interaction.” He then begins to describe a few design principles, but he cautions against labeling such principles as rules: “[W]e will…[explore] a set of principles. These are not design recommendations, rules, or guidelines. Rules would lay down a method for design; guidelines would suggest to a designer what to do. However, given the variety of settings in which the embodied interaction approach is applied, it would be inappropriate to give rules or guidelines here.” At any rate, he proceeds to give 6 principles:

1. Computation is a medium
2. Meaning arises on multiple levels
3. Users, not designers, create and communicate meaning
4. Users, not designers, manage coupling
5. Embodied technologies participate in the world they represent
6. Embodied interaction turns action into meaning

Dourish then proceeds to provide a lot of reasoning, real-world examples, etc. to back up his principles.
The final section of this chapter is entitled “Beyond the Principles.” In it, Dourish interestingly sums up his perspective on the nature of his principles, how they might be implemented, etc.: “Presenting the design implications as principles as I have done here is certainly problematic. For one thing, the principles overlap and interact in a variety of ways; they are certainly not distinct. For another, they suggest directions but do not provide hard-and-fast recipes. However one reason to explore general principles rather than specific design recommendations is in the hope that they will be a little more robust to the rapid pace of technical development.” He goes on to say that “The principles are a starting point, then. They serve to orient us to a set of issues that any specific design may need to explore in more detail. They are the start of a much longer story.”

Physical Interfaces and Electonic Arts (Bongers 2000)

In Physical Interfaces and Electronic Arts, Bongers follows the historical development of physical interfaces with the advent of electronic art forms, focusing on electronic music. He describes how these interfaces have evolved with advancements in sensors. The design of instrument interfaces became no longer constrained by the sound desired. For example, a violin shape is not necessary to produce digital violin sounds, allowing designers to create more ergonomic or human-centered instruments. One shortcoming, however, that designers seek to address is a lack of tactual feedback to music players in terms of what is felt and the sounds produced. Bongers describes three kinds of interactions, "performer-system (e.g. a musician play an intstrument), system-audience (e.g. installation art), and performer-system-audience." He criticizes that many supposedly 'interactive' systems are actually 'reactive' systems, and that instead humans and systems should influence each other.

Bongers also goes into depth about the mechanics of digital sound and sensing technologies, using several examples of digital instruments from his research. Sensors translate "physical energy (from the outside world) into electricity (into the machine world)". Actuators perform the opposite function. Some examples of sensors are: kinetic (pressure, torque, inertia), light, sound, temperature, smell, humidity, electricity, magnetism, and electro-magnetism (radio waves). Some examples of human modalities that would be read are muscle action, blowing, voice, blood pressure, and heart rate. Bongers' taxonomy of movements is as follows: Muscle action - either isometric (pressure) or movement (displacement). Movement - either mechanical contact (rotary pots/dials) or contactless (ultrasound, motion sensors)

Weekly Update #2 - 1/27/2010

This week the team began brainstorming on project directions. After a group brainstorming session, we broke up for some individual concept generation. Each group member presented two or three possible concepts which we discussed. Some of the potential concepts were:

• A field of half cylinder structures that would allow kids to play on top and underneath
• A house like structure made of railroad ties that would allow kids to both climb on the exterior and explore the interior
• A repeating ridge type structure with sound sensors located throughout. The sound sensors would be connected to lights which would change color or intensity based on the play taking place The interior structure would glow during the day and the exterior at night. Also the sound sensor sensitivity would be turned up at night so that it will respond to ambient noise.
• A series of blocks with embedded proximity sensors that will cause the blocks to glow when a person walks past. The length of time the block stays on could be adjusted for a variety of games and exploration.

The team was unable to choose a single idea in time for the one minute madness and will be presenting our favorite concepts so far. The team has discussed another round of concept presentations for later this week and are also creating a formal requirements/specifications sheet to help us select a final concept.

Summary for Tangible Bits

This reading discussed a form of human computer interaction
that involved the manipulation of data by attaching the data to
real, physical objects, called "Tangible Bits". The author's goal
for tangible bits is to devise a way that can join the physical world
with cyberspace by use of interactive surfaces, coupling a bit and
an atom, and the use of ambient media. The reading went on to
highlight these three key concepts of the tangible bits by introducing
three projects that involved these mechanics.

The first project was the metaDESK, in which the user would instantiate
GUI based devices from a simple window, and then the devices would then
be projected by the machine in order for the user to have full, physical
interactions with the tools at his/her disposal.

The next project that was mentioned was called ambientROOM. This device
was designed to be a complement to the metaDESK's interface design with its
use and manipulation of ambient media, which includes lighting, shadows,
airflow, water, and sound. The use of the ambient media is designed so that
the system can relay information to the user through the boundaries of human
perception.

The last project mentioned was the transBOARD, which when combined with
an interactive surface, absorbs the information of physical objects that are around
it and interacting with it. Once the information has been absorbed, it is then
transformed into digital bits, and released into cyberspace.

From this reading, I can tell that it would be possible to incorporate the concept
of ambient media into our project, and possibly the interactive surfaces to a lesser
extent than that of the metaDESK. However, I do not believe it is possible to
incorporate a system such as the one found in the transBOARD to meld the physical
play space with the cybernetic world.

Reiser - Interactivity, Public Art, and Architecture

Reiser begins the paper by bringing up the issue of 'space' in the context of public digital artworks. Since many of the pieces that he is describing involve virtual reality, there are two ideas of space going on in the piece; one is the physical space that the users and installation occupy, and the other is the virtual space that the installation affords. Reiser continues talking about the idea of 'distance' and how the prevalence of digital art works are causing the general public to have a shrinking idea of distance, since everything is becoming so interconnected. Reiser sees an issue with this because the idea of distance is very central to architecture.

Reiser then makes the claims that most of the recent work in the domain of public art installations has been derivative of the work that was done in the early 1960s by the group Experiments in Art and Technology. Their projects and installations range from the use of fm transmitters to infrared cameras, all based around the idea of large scale public art. Reiser notes that the execution of these pieces may have been slighty less polished than more current installations, but that was solely the blame of the technology.

After establishing some concerns about the general notion of public installations, Reiser begins to specify some projects of note. All projects that are generally large scale and in very public locations. He notes the arc de ceil, the Senster robot (which he claims to be the culmination of robotic installations), and the Monument against Fascism.

Reiser then moves onto haptic and tangible interfaces, which are his focus. He describes several projects which involve the users in a physical way rather than just being a passive displayed installation. "The Legible City" invites the user to get onto of a mounted bicycle and ride through a virtual city made up of letters, and "Bar Code Hotel" lets people control their virtual avatar by scanning the bar codes of objects in a physical room.

Reiser closes with note that there are several artists currently involved in projects in a new direction, or perhaps directions, as Reiser states, "there are as many types of public digital art as there are artists."

LeFaivre: Ground-Up City

In Ground-Up City, LeFaivre depicts the shift in playground and play space construction with the rise of "ground-up" ideology, where design is driven from and in consultation with the community. LeFaivre notes key shifts beginning in the 1920s where thinkers like Freud began to position play and playfulness as essential to education and cognitive development. Post-war Amsterdam in particular saw significant change in the design and number of playgrounds with the idea of "child empowerment" and children's rights. Architects and artists began to focus their attention to the design of play spaces, which were just one part of this movement. With this increased attention, designs were challenged and the idea of a playground as a medium for imaginative play rather than having pre-defined functionalities (like swinging) came to be. In 1964, Jane Jacobs challenged the idealism of playground design by bringing attention to the fact that parks and playgrounds were actually primary locations of gang violence. From the realism of her work came another shift to looking at the streets as a context for play and creating community rather than having government associations develop isolated, predefined areas where 'play' was to occur. With this emphasis, participatory design began to occur in urban neighborhoods and people began to have input in the development of play and public spaces. These developments in Amsterdam revolutionized playground design with three primary characteristics. They are participatory (designed in conjunction with people, including the needs of children), intersitial (integrated with the city, not just in one isolated place), and polycentric (part of a network of playgrounds throughout the city). The interstitial aspect is particularly important because it coincides with the design and development of public spaces in cities aimed to increase community in addition to creating opportunities for play.

Summary of Senda's Play Structure pp. 11-43

In Play Structure, Senda begins by explaining that play structures, such as jungle gyms and other play equipment, are only a small part of a child's overall play environment. After clarifying his definition of the play environment, Senda then breaks a child's play environment down into four elements; a place to play, time to play, friends to play with, and methods of play. Senda then breaks the play space into six distinct types; nature space, open space, street space, anarchy space, hideout space, and a play structure space. Senda then expresses a desire to see more nature spaces in cities as play spaces.

Expanding on the play structure space, Senda goes on to describe the developmental stages of play with equipment; first a "functional play" stage, followed by a "technical play" stage, and ending with a "social play" stage. Senda also notes the challenges with designing for each stage.

Senda concludes by outlining the major types of play behavior with play equipment: resting, challenging, thrill play, and game play.

CABE Space: Designing and Planning for Space

This article is all about designing playspaces. It talks about how that should be done, for what reasons it should be done a certain way, etc. etc. At the time this article was written (late 2008) the UK was beginning to get more money for upgrading and creating new playgrounds. Obviously CABE Space would be interested in voicing their opinion at such a significant time.
CABE Space (the author(s)) gives a couple examples of other places where there are "successful" playspaces. Some such spaces include more natural spaces--spaces where dirt, sand, etc. are accessible by children. Other successful spaces are ones that are not just mere formulaic "KFC" (kit, fence, and carpet) playgrounds. CABE Space also suggests that open play areas (i.e. non-easily recognizable play area) are good too. Similarly, they suggest that many play ground constructors are overly concerned with safety. CABE Space notes that Play expert Tim Gill "...believes that these countries are getting it right primarily because landscape architects enjoy a much closer involvement in the process. The starting point is a holistic look at the site, rather than at what pieces of equipment should be bought." CABE Space offers many ideas and thoughts about play, and they list 10 "specific" suggestions for practitioners to consider when constructing a play space. They sum their thoughts in what they call the "one golden rule": a successful play space is a place in its own right, specially designed for its location, in such a way as to provide as much play value as possible.