I woke up thinking about these kids bricks today. They're called imagibricks. Easily recreated using cardboard and maybe a hi-res color print of a brick-like texture and it might do very nicely as a weapon/game controller. Sketch to follow...
]]>
I woke up thinking about these kids bricks today. They're called imagibricks. Easily recreated using cardboard and maybe a hi-res color print of a brick-like texture and it might do very nicely as a weapon/game controller. Sketch to follow...
]]>A few days later when I recovered from the ego blow of not being able to figure out something on my own, I realized that in my confusion I had actually learned a lot about serial communication. Not enough to get my potentiometer and push button switch working but that was just a technicality. So as impressed as I was by the Wii's accelerometer/IR/Bluetooth combination after a few days off I realized that it might be a bit out of reach.
I salvaged the week by using the post-Holiday time to re-think the project. If the wireless dream was becoming a more and more distant might there be another option? I spent a day wandering through thrift shops and antique stores looking for inspiration. i found it in the form of a small antiques shop that retrofitted old machines. There I found almost the exact replica of the Philco TV that I had researched upgraded and cable ready. The texture of the image was startling, I have always been a sucker for that kind of vacuum tube look. But what was even more fascinating were the dials and system indicators driving these old machines. Police scanners, shortwave radios etc. All potentiometers measuring location, destination via physical display.
if i returned to a physical interface what would or could my poterntiometer measure?
]]>
•I had a great time observing and playing with the Wii at the Nintendo store this morning. Since my dreamn is to use both an accelerometer and a wireless connection together a test drive seemed like an obvious motivation strategy.
•People were really excited of course. And I was happy to see that I wasn't the only adult playing. The demo mostly consisted of the sports games that accompany the system. Bowling, Golf, Tennis etc. I chose boxing because a) I have never boxed before b) it would involve a full range of motion and c) would require the use of the joystick contraption.
• I have absolutely no interest in boxing. So the fact that I actually enjoyed the game was a good indicator of the system's fun factor. Pretty physical and definitely an agression extractor: the boxing option. I chose the absolute beginners level and tried to bob around as much as possible. I tried to send my body and hands in different directions to test out the x,y,z axes. I risked embarrassment in an effort to check the system's responsiveness. Although it wasn't great with the weird forward lunges I started doing it caught just about every other action that I made up. I moved and my other body moved just a few seconds later, like an echo.
•How do you direct people and give them a sense of how a system works? I puzzled over that after re-reading the PhysComp text book. The Wii solves this little interface problem by giving onscreen directions and allowing users to play a practice round. Simple enough. Although I noticed that the sales associates still had quite a lot of explaining to do, in general —as long as you can read —the interface seemed transparent enough.
•But why do we expect these interfaces to be drag-free? Why do our expectations of technology rise incrementally when we are standing in front of a new gadget or toy? I wanted real-time responsiveness. I wanted to jab and duck like the boxer I am not. I wanted to have tried the Wii six months ago when I first read about it. There is this gap between how something is supposed to function and how it actually does. The dream-reality principle let's call it. I mull it over as I return to the floor where somewhere somehow I will be making and completing my own Dream Reality experiment for the next several weeks.
]]>In an effort to get a grip on the general direction of my final I reviewed Chapter 8 of the text book this week. Primarily I was interested in thinking through this relationship between the user interface and the viewer's expectations. After a lot of good feedback in class last week I have decided against using the large physical buttons. My plan remains to use the motion of the fist as the input device. An accelerometer could be used to measure position, motion etc. and the position of the hand could be mapped to the x-y coordinates. Another option might be to use switches that are physically mounted to the glove.
This week I also reviewed the Arduino to Processing lab. After a lot of troubleshooting and the purchase of a new Arduino board I was able to get the call and response to work. I was also able to get the two potentiometers and the pushbutton switch to work this time.
A Sharp TV from 1953...
]]>
My game features a woman with a raised fist, so the hand seems like an obvious input method. A slight modification to the DDR's foot switch. Perhaps the physical input option could involve the raised fist? You hit different buttons in order to trigger the move and shoot functions. This would enable the user to inhabit the character physically but also might suggest the violence/force mandated by the Ten Point Plan upon which the game is based. The balled up fist directly references the 1968 Mexico City Olympics when Black sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised black-gloved fists in solidarity with the BPP.
One solution would be to borrow from this event directly and incorporate the black leather glove itself. The user would punch three buttons to move the panther. Two adjacent buttons for horizontal movement and a forward button to fire the various weapons. The top of the glove—the knuckle area?— could be lined with metal and large buttons could be suspended in front of the user's head. A very general mock-up below. The armature would have to adjust for users of different heights and somehow be sturdy enough to provide good contact between the hand and switch.
...
]]>I made some preliminary observations of the DanceDanceRevolution game today. Daniel Soltis was experimenting with a DDR-driven game he'd built in Processing..
The Players:
I don't know whether it was the time—middle of the day—location—the hallway of the PComp lab—or personal preference but it was hard to find players for the game. Most people were on their way somewhere else and chose not to get involved. I suspect it was a matter of context really. The game/pad connotes a definite party atmosphere that wasn't very conducive to the sanctuary of the PComp lab.
At Play:
Daniel had mapped the DDR arrows to the mouse and arrow keys on the keyboard. He was using the original DDR pad and just wired it directly into his Arduino. Once he explained the system —arrows correspond to character movement etc—it was easy enough to play. The object was to avoid a series of large rolling balls by jumping into the air. In order to make the character jump you would have to physically remove your feet from the switches. I was hesitant to jump at first. And then I just got over it. This seemed to happen as I became more and more involved in the world of the game. Basic character identification at work. Although you didn't have to physically jump to make the character jump. It was more fun to do so.
Results:
The DDR pad seems to bring along with it its own kind of upbeat world. (Someone commented thatin order for it to work it really needed music.) I noticed that while I was playing Daniel's game I was more fascinated with the game's physical aspect then I was with the actual on-screen activity/content. Action beforee content. The one other person who played also confessed a certain fascination with the DDR pad itself. I wonder if there is some way to tip the balance?
So far I have been mulling over two different approaches to the interface— a console-type object or something more "physical." One idea is to modify a pre-existing component (traditional keyboard/mouse/joystick) that would be reminiscent of the time period. Originally I imagined an old radio or television set as a form factor. This would be great if I already had an object in mind or in my possession... I may do a little infotech research to get an idea of what kind of forms might have been prevalent during the time period. In general I am thinking that depending on the age of the machine that I chose this could be a tricky process! I'll look around and see what I can find. If this doesn't seem feasible now then with some research it might be in the near future.
The second idea is to make the user/game relationship more physically interactive. To have physical movements trigger the action in the game. For example, the user throws a brick and the panther/shooter throws one too. I am thinking that my observation should investigate this type of activity.For my observation I have decided to investigate the beat game phenomenon and look at games like "Dance, Dance Revolution." I am very curious to see how interactivity and actual full-bodied physical could be incorporated here.
I am just starting to make my way through this article. But I am most immediately struck by its premise that our maximum level of sensory perception is way way below what our nerve receptons process. This is striking in light of this particular point in the semester when midterm projects are now over and the final project is only imagined. Most importantly though I have a very very realistic sense of my PComp skill set. What I can build. What I can sense? And what might it connote or suggest? What comes first the idea or the LEDS?
After pages of diagrams and charts I was relieved to see mention of Godel's theorem. And some recognition (or admission?) of the idea that the world is undescribable and unquantifiable in many ways.
But quantifying what people notice can serve its functions of course. And I guess in a simplistic way would point to the importance of user-testing. I have always found that to be true actually. You make art/ try to direct attention or experience etc with the most over-theorized of intentions and then watch as others read/use/interpret it differently. This is the space of whatever/whever. Whatever someone want s to see in the video, wherever they want to enter the gallery space. Has to become acceptable at some point. You can only watch it happen. But somehow the process of making devices and objects (this midterm project experience) seems to upset that a bit. You come up with an idea, build it, test it and modify accordingly. IS there a way to build it and embrace using it against the grain?
]]>I’ve been thinking on expanding on an earlier idea regarding the quantification of emotional states. I imagine it to be a fictional machine with a rather outdated interface/form that purports to determine moods for the emotionally challenged. It would seem as if you had stumbled upon a machine in a junk shop and found out that it— and its outdated philosophies— actually worked.
Here's an image from a few years ago. They were animations for an installation and prints at one point but they never seemed to go anywhere. One-liners of sorts. Or images that might need too much external information?
But I wonder if trying to make the idea physical might firm the idea up a bit. Although I think the obvious solution might be to create an interface for an animated form of the graphics I would like to try and think of some non-screen-based solutions in order to vary the type of input.
What is this? What does it do?
Ultimately we decided to move on! And to change the design to reflect our current capabilities...
Scott's user feedback diagram: Download file
]]>Scott was a wizrd with turning the conversations into workable sketches and prototypes see his handiwork here: http://itp.nyu.edu/~sc1948/blogs/
The Map...
Scott and I remembered the simplicity of the plaster of paris hand print. The physicality of the pressing of the hand and the positive feedback derived from leaving an imprint of your identity on a surface to be interpreted later held a certain fascination...
The Dyson Airblade caught my eye in the Business section. The use of the hands to trigger the device seemed intriguing. As a group we had been discussing the crystal ball and other types of divination. A question arose: how do you create an electronic device that has the aura and simplicity of casting coins with the I,Ching?
YanYan was struck by the loading graphic that has become ubiquitous with flash-driven websites. We thought to reinterpret it using LED's circling a hand...
The process became rather non-linear after that...
An early sketch from a wide-ranging discussion about handprints, loading graphics and the benefits of a portable device.
From the second day of design deliberations when Scott appeared with multiple iterations of our varying ideas...
I loved the simplicity of this one which used frisbees in a make-up compact styled configuration to create a device that would enable both the boolean and i,ching-like predictions.
We struggled to find a desing that represented our desire to have both decision-,aking systems represented. Our observations seemed to dictate that a devic with two options—one short and direct and the other illuminating and open to interpretation.
We all agreed that there was a certain practicality to seperating out the two readings across the right and left hands. But it seemed really big! We struggled to find a solution that would involve one unit that would reveal two differnt readings without creating a mapping nightmare!
The ipod-like contemporary design. Representing a boolean system it features a translucent plexi "dance floor" lit up by LEDs, the reading is triggered by the placement of the hand on the "trampoline." 
After a long walk in the wilderness of completely different ideas and interfaces
>>>
>>>
We returned to the original design with a re-newed focus>>>
The Winning Sketch for the Early Prototype...
