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.