13. Designing Interactive Artifacts

For my last post of this reflective journal, I will go through the learning outcomes I have been though, by participating in the course, Designing interactive artifacts.

Prototype interaction and sketch with code and hardware
Learning to use coding and hardware as a sketching tool, was one of the main reasons that I took this course. Discovering the three form elements of interaction design (Vallgårda, A., 2013), has opened up an understanding of the relations between these forms. Explore and sketch though these forms had given me a more in-depth knowledge of artifacts, as when we in our project group examined them, to then connect them to our first prototype. This was a great experience as I understood and gained from the material speaking back to me.

Articulating interaction
The course started out with discussing the framework of the course, with how we will learn design argumentation by focusing on Theoretical and material grounds  (Dalsgaard, Dindler & Fritsch, 2012).

I was very skeptical with this course of action, because all the design projects, I have been part on, has always had a focus on empirical grounds and a user-centered approach. But what I have learned: I have a understanding of reflective conversation with design materials. To discuss and explore ‘Knowing-in-action’ and ‘Move experiments,’ is a great tool to allow to go deeper into your understanding of a concept and an idea. By designing by doing, then stop up and think to reflect on the practice. This approach has opened up for a “tick” that I as a designer sometimes has, if there is an idea or something that, I’m curious on, by designing by doing, I can allow myself to explore and thereby creating a ground through theoretical and material grounds.

Learning from our project
When our project started, we immediately had an idea. We wanted to measure attention between people in a room. We sat down, sketched the concept, went to the ‘show and tell,’ and received pretty critical feedback. We did not have the right approach.
So after the ‘show and tell,’ we started our project over again. Here we discussed what it was we were trying to look at, social dynamics.
We did some desk-research, to see what social dynamics is, from an animal and society perspective. And then we began to look at ourselves, through bodystorming, we did design-by-moving (Hummels, Overbeeke, and Klooster., 2007). We used our body to explore, discover and creating though interactions.
It was a great eye-opener, as it gave us a perspective and an understanding of what we were exploring.
Hereafter we began to explore the other forms of interaction design. We had small workshops, where we decided what material we wanted to use. A workshop where we explored hand movement, and what hand gestalt we found intriguing.

When we had investigated and decided on what our first prototype should contain, from a physical form and interaction gestals, we began to explore the temporal form. But sadly did we have insufficient skills in coding, which made our intentions with the light, very tough to create. It made is very though to explore different actions with our prototype. We fake it and explorer by acting out (Ross, Wensveen,. 2010), but we also had to begin focusing on the exhibition because of time constraints.
Unfortunately, because of our coding limitations, we needed to remove intentions with our prototype and focus on a simple touch, which interfered with the interactions that people had with our prototype at the exhibition. So even though Vallgårda (2013), suggest to explore the three form elements of interaction, skills have a significant limitation to how the IxD ends up.

But, at the exhibition, I learned, that our work had paid off. People understood our prototype and intentions, with the glove.

 

 

 

Exploring by doing, and reflection in action can create meaningful designs. By exploring the three form elements of interaction, establishes a conversation with the material, which gives an excellent understanding of what you are doing, what is possible and where to explore next.

12. The exhibition

When we created our boothfor the exhibition, the first discussion we had was, how should the product be presented. We wanted people to explore and experience with the product in a playful and explorative way. But we also wanted to see how people react to the intimacy of the product. So should it be a closed, intimate booth or an open more playful booth?
We ended up with an open booth. Some of the reasons for this decision was that a closed booth did not open for a playful atmosphere, and the room was very dark, so if wanted the intimacy could still occur created.

 
We used two walls, one with a small explanation of our idea and a picture with the prototypes in use, and another that show our process. The wall with the explanation was the first wall people saw, they glanced over it, and found our prototypes laying underneath. They tried out the prototype alone, or with another person, and at last they looked into our process. This was exactly what we attended, as we wanted people to explore the prototype with as little knowledge of it as possible.

As mentioned, was there two ways that people explored our prototype, alone and with another person.
When people explored our prototype alone, everybody had a playful and explorative approach. They touched different object and on themselves. It looked like that they first tried to understand the meaning of the light, and when they realized what it meant for them, they tried to find another action, in the glove.

When people explored the glove with each other, they also had the same playful exploration, but depending on people’s relationship with each other, it could also become very intimately. 
The same thing happened, as what we found out at the bodystorm. If the two persons, had different energy, expectation, timing, etc. the interaction will break. 
So if one person wanted a more playful exploration, and another an intimate, one of the other withdrew. It looked like our prototype told a lot about the relationship between people, as it could go as a negotiation between people, of how intimate their relation could go.
But after people had explored the first few times with each other, the same thing happened when they were exploring alone; they tried to activate another feedback.
Our prototype only had one sort of feedback. It looked like people wanted to explore different interactions, just as our intentions were with the prototype.
I believe what happened was that, because there is a lot of different feelings and emotions in a touch, people wanted to explorer our artifact in different ways, to make it express these emotions and feelings.
What we could do next, was to make these different interactions possible, to allow people to explore freely. Though Wensveen, Djajadiningrat, and Overbeeke (Interaction Frogger: A Design Framework to Couple Action and Function through Feedback and Feedforward) eyes, we need to unify action and information, though the six aspects of natural coupling, to make the interaction intuitive. And to create a myriad way to give the product functionality, will provide the user freedom of interaction, which will provide the user a more embodied interaction.

 

Here is a compilation of clips from the exhibition.

11. Last touch, before the exhibition

The idea behind the physical form of our product, the glove, was that it should be as naked as possible. We want to hide the Arduino, wires, and sensors as much as possible because the glove should be an extension of the user’s body. This is because we want to create a moment between the two users, which when their gloves meet, the glove will express this interaction with light. This is made with an idea and a curiosity in the word attentiveness, as we describe as the action of paying close attention to something or someone.
When we met up and connected the temporal form (code) and physical form (glove), we had a product that worked. With some help and a lot of coding, we had managed to make the two light stages work one after another, and when our hands, with the gloves on, interacted we could feel that the light created a curiosity, intimacy and a wanting to explore. But what we found out was that because you could see the Arduino, wires, and battery, you moved you’re curious to how the product worked than focusing on the interaction between you and your partner, the touch, the light and the attentiveness.

Therefore we needed to figure out how we could ‘hide’ as much as possible so the user will have their focus on the touch, and attentiveness.
By sewing some Sunglasses Pouch on top of your glove we managed to hide all the wiring, and technology, so the focus would be on the touch with your finger.

 

As mentioned above, we have figured out to put the two light stages after each other. But we to make this possible, we need to make some changes with our intended light effect. We the second light effect ‘meteor rain’ to move from the tip of your finger and then inwards. But because we do not have any more time, we changed the idea, of the light, that instead of receiving attentiveness or energy, you give it to the other user. There is also something beautiful, that the lights end at the tip, and therefore “points” at the touch, meaning that the focus is on the touch.

The exhibition is next week, and I’m am very curious about how people will use our product. Will they understand the interaction? And will our intention be meet with users being encouraged interactions in a playful and explorative way?

10. Coding and cutting down

Because of our deadline is near, we decided last Tuesday that I should focus on the temporal form, and Anne should focus on the physical form. She should sew the led strip and sensors into the glove, while I created the coding.
The first thing I did was to figure out how I would create the code, with the desired sensors and light.
To make it easy for myself, I decided to make the simplest interaction first, with fewest components, and when it works, I will build upon it.

The first thing I needed to do was to make the pressure sensor turn on a led. This code was very simple, as I used the given course code, Button-Pullup. Hereafter I removed the button and replaced the pressure sensor. Now I can turn on a led with the pressure sensor.
But because we have decided that we want to have all our components stitched into our glove, I wondered if we could use a button without a pull-up resistor, as it uses a lot of components and space.

After some research, I found out that the Arduino has a build in pull-up resistor, INPUT_PULLUP, which means I can connect the pressure sensor directly to a digital pin, and ground, without having to use two resistors and 5V.

Hereafter I am looking into how the light should work and reacted when the pressure sensor is activated.

Last Tuesday we went down to talk to Halfdan in the intermedia lab, and he gave use a Ledstrip which we could use. It meant that I needed to figure out how we could control the led strip.
I figured that three states would be fitting for the light, to create the interaction we want. A stage where no light is turned on, a stage that turns the LEDs on, one at a time (to give a time aspect), and a pulsating stage that creates a puls between the users.
Here I went to find some inspiration on the internet.
I found a great site, which had a code, and a lot of LEStrip effects, I could use to find an effect that fits our need. https://www.tweaking4all.com/hardware/arduino/adruino-led-strip-effects/

 

Video show examples of effects, I tried out, and by exploring different physical forms.

 

 

By creating this simple prototyping form, and by exploring the temporal form, I could explorer different lights which I felt gave the desired effect.
The last clip on the video, shows the effects, that I went with. It creates the loading state, called ‘colorwipe,’ which give a feeling that time matters with the interacting, what happens when the light reaches the end? And hereafter the pulsating effect, called ‘meteor rain’ which gives a feeling of creates a connection, and giving something to the object or user that is touched.
The only problem is that the loop is faked. I couldn’t figure out, how to make the first effect and then run the other. What I thought was happening, was that the first action ‘colorwipe’ and the second action was run at the same time.

I tried to create a for-loop, but for some reason, it did not work.
What I believe we need to do is to use the function, Milli. But we only had one week left, and as it would take a lot of time, we may need to consider to only use the ‘meteor rain.’

It was quite frustrating as I felt very alone with the temporal form, as none of the others in the group could help. I believe that Anna Vallgårda’s conceptualizing computers as a design material is a great idea. But it needs demand on the design team, that is not described in her text. Everybody needs to understand code, and minimum one needs to have coding skills.

What I decided to do was to speak with my group members, to make sure that these light effects were the one we wanted, make sure it worked with the sewn glove, and then figure out what to do.

9. Design brief

After our first prototype, we had over first active experimentation, where we had put together the three forms of interaction, to experience how the intended interaction felt.
After this experimentation, we had some findings we needed to put together to find out what we wanted to create for the exhibition.
What we used a lot of time discussing was how we were going to take these findings, from our bodystorm, material exploration, coding, and prototype, to then put together to a final product. One of our restrictions was that none of our team members had a coding background, which makes Anna Vallgårda’s idea of using conceptualizing computers as a design material, though for our group. Here we needed to find and focus, on the basic idea of our design to then use that base to further add-on the design.
What we first agreed on was that the gesture of touching each other was the base of our design. We wanted to use light to symbolize or express the touch of two hands meeting. But how could we use the touch of two hands to turn on a light? Here we went to the IxD lab and looked for some sensors we could use to activate the light. We figured that the simplest way to do this was with a pressure sensor. The pressure sensor could be hidden behind the fabric and still work; we could code, different actions defined by force and so on.
Hereafter we went to our supervisor and discussed what we wanted to do. We wanted to express attentiveness, with light, when hands interact with each other. What we were told was that two fingers interacting with each other would be a fine focus to express our idea of the project. And that we should write down a design brief for what we wanted to create.
After the supervision we sat down and wrote down our brief:

With our design we want to encourage interactions between two hands in a playful and explorative way to express different aspects of attentiveness – we don’t want to encourage specific interactions but rather reflect how time is a factor in how superficial or intense attentiveness can be perceived.

I begin to understand the idea of taking an outset in one of the forms to then add-on the other forms. When our group began to focus on the interaction gestalt, how the user performance movement (our body storming and animal research). We have an essence of findings, that can create a base we can explore by adding the temporal and physical form to the interaction gestalt.
I learned, that to move our process we need to make limitations and decide what the essence is to then build upon further on that idea. That also allows an iterative approach, that makes the group reflect on the work to then make us curious to build upon the essence of the idea.

8. Our first prototype

When our group teamed up again, we had sewed the high lead threat into our gloves. And combining my code with the gloves, we had created a very lo-fi prototype which made it possible to explore the three forms of IxD in one form.

 

The idea of this prototype was to explorer a handshake, and what it meant when hands connected with each other. By creating this prototype we found it much easier to discuss with each other what feelings there were combined by using this artifact. And we could discuss what the meaning of the light turning on should express through the hand gesture. This made it possible to think with and through our body, and opened up for a totally new language in our group. As we could talk about what the interaction felt like.

Some examples of things that made me curious:

• The heat transfer through the handshake was strengthened by having the light dim up
• Time had a great meaning, as the time made the gesture much more intimate.
• The simplicity of hands touching each other, create a balance and connection between each other.

What was funny was that suddenly by making this simple prototype it created a lot of energy in the group, and a hundred new ideas were created. How we could turn on lights all around our hands depending on where hands were touched. A heating component would speed up the process of touching each other hands or a magnet repealed and made use force hands together and so on.
So by doing things generates a totally new form of reflections.
But what we needed to do in our group was to make decisions, by having all these new insights and questions, we needed to look into what we had to create.

What we need to do was to look into our design brief, and by then make a decision.

7. Programming

Im starting to explore how the Temporal form should be, at the IxD,  program the hand to turn on when different poses is created with the hand. Firstly I thought on how it should work. In the IxD lap I found high leading threat. I believe that if we could sew it into a glove, then we could open and close circued when our two hands interact with each other.

Beginning programming:

I started by activating a RGB led, with a button. Because I thought that if I activate activate it with a button, then I could add more buttons, and thereby define diffrent colors and expressions.

I found a simple code and tried it out:

Hereafter if thought that I want to activate the RGB led with different buttons. This will mean that I can controle the led though different circuit and thereby define different actions.

After some research and coding I found a solution.

 

I made a circuit in Tinkercad: Try it here

I can now controle the R value, G value and B value with different buttons. The means that If I press different buttons the color will change over time.

But because we want to do this using a glove and the high lead threat, I will now demonstrate that we can unplug the button and just close the circuit with the wires.

 

What we need to do is to explore the physical form, we can combine the 3 forms of IxD, to see how our products interaction design works an feels in the forms combined.

6. Bodystorming

What we decided was to look into the Interaction gestalt of the three form elements of interaction design. The idea was to see the interactions of movement that a user(s) will do in relation to the thing or the environment, in our case interaction between two people or a small group, and here we looked at the interact through attentiveness. The way we explored this was through body storming. Bodystorming is a great way to reveal knowledge about the topic by experiencing it through your own body and as described in Experience prototyping by Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000, August) gave the whole team a common focus and a shared ownership of the design directions chosen for further development.
As I have performed and exerted acting, as another member of our group, we had a bunch of acting exercises we could use to explore attentiveness.

First, we used the exercise, Follow the hand, to understand when and how we connected with each other through movement and control performed by another person also what breaks the interaction.
What we found out was that time and balance of pace in patterns created an understanding and a connection to each other. And if these were broken by sudden changes, the bond was broken.

The next exercise was Impuls of attentiveness. Here one person stood up and the 3 other sat down. When and if the persons sitting down received an impulse of attentiveness from the standing person, they should go up to her.
What we found out here, was that there was a great difference in the balance of roles, and that made it difficult to receive a common balance and impulse of attentiveness to stand up. So there needs to be a form of an invitation to feel and receive attentiveness from another person.

 

Next, we did the same exercise, but where we decide a pattern of who should first stand up and who should next. What was interesting here was, I was the first to stand up, and I felt the need to imitate the person standing up, so I didn’t break the balance and “social construction” she had suggested and performed. But Anna was the next to stand up, and she totally broke the balance by standing in the middle of us and putting her arms around our shoulders. She quickly found it awkward and turned down the energy to our level, by imitation our body stand. But when the last person came up, and we were standing in a circle, I felt that the energy level raised and I put my arms around to the others and it didn’t feel awake.
So again the is something in feel each others balance, and not stepping over the construction or energy level. Like in Follow the hand, if you sudden changes accrued the bond broke. But its possible to raise the level, of interaction, if everybody is feeling and are ready to raise the attentiveness.

Lastly, we tried the same exercise but were the one standing up had the back to the group. This didn’t work, as there the sitting group did not feel any impulse or invitation to stand up.

 

So the main findings of this exercise were that patterns, balance, and timing have a great effect when interacting with each other through attentiveness. If sudden changes appear the bond can break, but if the interacting and energy changes, changes can happen.

 

After the exercise, we discussed in our group what to look at, we decided to look at this interaction of attentiveness by focusing on two hands meeting.
I must be honest, I do not know if it is attentiveness we are looking at, yet. I believe we need to explore the physical form and temporal form to then explore interaction gestalt to better understand what we are looking at. But what I can see is that the interaction and exploration of two hands, gives a bond and imitate connection between people, and that time has a great factor. Just try to give a handshake to a colleague, but keep the handshake going. First, it feels normal, its just a handshake, the very quickly it is extremely awkward. Maybe there’s something in the expectation of the interaction?

 

 

Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000, August). Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 424-433). ACM.

5. After show and tell

The idea we showed at our show and tell was shortly about:

We look at social gatherings and how presents and attentiveness is something that is invisible to a human, but it is something we can feel and see, and it is happening though peoples doing.

Here we were inspired by thermodynamics and how something as energy is conserved, and is measurable, and the article Unlocking the Expressivity of Point Lights (Harrison et al 2012). Our design is a led connected to people, and depending on how much attentiveness they give to other in the room the light is shining bright og weak. So if people are standing alone the led weakens and if the people are interacting and giving/receiving attentiveness it weakens. Here a lamp in the middle of the room will measure and calculating if there is balance in the attentiveness in the room, prompting people to interact equally with everyone in the room.

The design received critique because it prompted/suggested a right or wrong way to interact in social gatherings. It was though realize technically and the idea of controlling and not opening peoples curiosity.

What I though we needed to do, was going more simple, try to get curious of an gesture or an technology, try building it and hereafter see what it will lead to.

So we decided to focus on attentiveness.

We began to researched and got inspired form how animals and people are socially interacting though attentiveness. I found especially the way people are interacting with each other and how we are showing attentiveness. How is it that attentiveness is acted out socially between people? Like a hand gesture, eye contact, using our arms to show body language.

What I think we need to do is that we need to decided on something we are inspired by, is it a greeting, is it eye contact or fx how animals are using their bodyheat to hear up each other.

Then we should explore on what we have decide to go with. Here I would prefer to focus on the Interaction of gestures, and the attentiveness happening when hands meet. I believe that acting out and experiencing though body-storming is a great way to understand what we are looking at. Hereafter we can add temporal and physical form, and rens and repeat.

4. Affordance and signifier: A Pen

When I am looking at this pen, I see that it affords that I can use it for writing. I can see the pen, the lead sticking out of the end, and I know that I can use it to write with. The pen is formed where the end with the lead sticking out, is pointing, it’s like an arrow. This signifies that its the end I am pointing with, and I will need that end to write with.

When I have used up the tip of the lead, a knob on the side of the pen there is in line with my finger allows me to push out more lead. The knob signifies that it can be pushed, but it does not tell me what the affordances is, here I need to try it or know it in forehand.

When I need to fill the pen up with new leads, I could push the knob and try to push the lead in from the tip. This works, but is not a great experience, as it is hard not to break the lead. But there is a secret signifier. If I take out the eraser form the back of the pen, there is a little room where I can “easily” add more lead pins. The affordances are there, but there are no signifiers to tell me that the affordances are there.

If there was a signifier, like a sign, at the site of the easer part, showing that the affords to take out the eraser, and fill it with lead, it would have been easier for new users, to use this affordance.

 

The knob

Holding the pen

The tip, that forms an arrow

The eraser

The secret signifier

Hole to fill lead tips

 

When I’m looking at products in my every day, they are filled with secret signifiers. When I’m writing this paper, there are secret hotkeys to control pages with, and my Nespresso coffee-machine allows me to run a cleaning program if I hold 2 unintuitive buttons for 10 sec.

Is these secret signifiers part of a great design, or are they a bad design trying to fill more features in at less space, like the apple earplugs form my last blog?