人算不如天算
I was asked to make a blog for the NYU IMA Low Res graduate program. (I started with no tangible experience in interaction design.) Math is nature’s poetry, and these are just diary entries.
Alter-Instagram
Reel
I was asked to make a blog for the NYU IMA Low Res graduate program. (I started with no tangible experience in interaction design.) Math is nature’s poetry, and these are just diary entries.
Alter-Instagram
Reel
IMALR-GT-104-03
WHAT: IMALR-GT-104
Anyway, this was a humbling experience to say the least. I explored a full range of wondrous failures before realizing that I agree with Attractive Things Work Better. Emotions do change the way the human mind solves problems. Due to what was/is going on with my Airbnb fiasco, I probably perceived the reading slightly differently than the author intended. However, the statement “being happy broadens the thought processes and facilitates creative thinking” was of particular interest to me. Alice Isen and her colleagues conducted a study. If a problem required unusual thinking, the solver was more likely to provide out of the box ideas after having been given a small gift-
I was given the opposite of that, which was reflected in my first pass at the project. Life felt like a game of roulette that I wanted to replicate- a game of chance. However, I wasn’t able to channel these emotions into my work. I’m someone who instinctually veers towards the “top-down” type of approach, and my negative affective state greatly inhibited my ability to be curious enough to create. “When you are sad or anxious, you are more likely to see the trees before the forest, the details before the big picture.” I agree.
As the days progressed, I came into possession of some random things (trash? recycled trash?). My friend offered me a singing bowl for “grounding,” and I began to wonder if there is a specific frequency or speed that would achieve optimal “grounding” based on someone’s emotional state. (Maybe a heartbeat sensor would be useful here... Next iteration.) The Psychopathology of Everyday Things speaks to the complexity of the human component of human-machine interaction. Engineers “make the mistake of thinking that logical explanation is sufficient.” When something doesn’t work, they automatically wonder if the fault lies with the user. We could consider that these errors are part of the natural cycle of human-centered design (HCD).
HCD is the “process that ensures that the designs match the needs and capabilities of the people for whom they are intended.” I like this. I like that design requires genuine attention. It requires problem definition and repeated tests. That’s where I found myself. If I actually wanted to experience something myself, what would I make?
The conceptual model is “an explanation, usually highly simplified, of how something works.” That’s what I realized I should be focusing on. Let’s just see if I can get the bowl to sing. There were multiple elements to consider. The bowl needed to sit on something that would absorb some of the vibrations for a fuller, smoother sound. I couldn’t have the mallet spin around the lip with the servo motor’s rotational constraints. It had to knock on the bowl.
The code is simple. I tried a photoresistor and a force sensor (mapped differently). The photoresistor was slightly too sensitive for a non-controlled environment, so I went for touch. You touch something, and the servo moves the mallet. Dingggg:
Then, I started to consider the paradox of technology. Yes, it can make our lives easier, but it also adds complexities. Did I really need this singing bowl to be mechanical? Am I creating a smartwatch version of the “traditional” hand-powered singing bowl? Maybe. Maybe not. I’ll have to keep exploring. It’s nice that Donald Norman believes in the potential to create a great product, “one that is successful, and that customers love.”
Sources:
Servo Motor Control Lab
Documentation Video Track - Bleu by Fred Again