Scott's ITP Weblogs

This week was a challenge for us to (A) create a final(ish) prototype casing, (B) get the wiring and LED marvels to happen, and (C) get the thing ready for testing.

First, we separated our tasks and split our energy. I went on a frame-or-box hunt for the best casing. I explored The Container Store, Bed Bath abd Beyond, Sam Flax, et al. Tons of choices. Not all of which were rejected right away, but the thing to be square, which is rare in prefab articles I found.

We finally settled on the frame idea we styarted with. The matting provided the opening and a workable material to cut and stretch fabrich over. We decided to ise a rectangular frame because it fit the hand best without being too enormous as a square thing on the table.

The programming and electronic testing wqas going well (Yan Yan and Leah sweated the multiple LED array details). We had a discussion about switches, and the nature of the casting-as-random-event as it related to the switch initiating the whole sequence. We has a rocker switch, a buttonswitch, and a pressure switch that none of us could make any sense of (including Scott F.) We settled on the rocker switch for now...

The prototype was planned based on the frame idea, and Scott began constructing the structures that would support the triggering mechanism, the LED arrays on eitehr side and the Frame itself. We ultimately will have a laser cut of all the I Ching symbols right from the mat board. We created an Illustrator file that had the cuts in place (that will be cut next week, since it takes a few days to get the laser cutter request processed).

The whole thing is coming along, but we bit off quite a bit more than we could chew here for the third week. The prototype is still up on blocks in the garage, but we will have one-fine-tuned machine when it's done. Which will be next week with any luck.

Posted by itp at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Developing the prototype was great fun. We wanted to go for a simple and sleek interface, echoing iPod simplicity. Building for a minimum of levers, buttons, handles and instructions. Once we settled on the general design, we all agreed that a cardboard prototype should be mocked up so we could see the size, think more clearly about materials and generally see how it felt to interact with the machine.

Critical to our design was stretchy fabric. We found a very able substitute that was ready-made for testing. Also, it came in sheer with a control top waistline. Very helpful. Sizing was also a concern. “Queen Long” seemed best suited for our testing needs.

The panty hose were too sheer, but would do for this first round. A small hand print would be inked into the fabric as a direction for hand placement.

We did find a nice quality Lycra that light would shine through easily to give the user feedback, but would remain opaque in the absence of any interaction. Since it needed a cleaning, we decided to wait until the techno-guts were closer to ready before a real Lycra “fitting.” The hand area would light up to confirm that the user had “downloaded” their question and possibly give the boolean response as a green for yes and red for no. The I Ching response lights would also shine through the fabric, but along the sides.

We are going for a white clean design-y box-like object. The only real control function on the unit (aside from the hand-placement area) would be the toggle for choosing to receive “answer” or “guidance” before casting.

Here is Leah's Blog entry for the project this week: http://itp.nyu.edu/~lg221/new_blog/

Posted by itp at 01:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Todd’s ear is a great filter. Our conversation with Todd cleared some fog from the room. Before we left him to go home for the night, we made plans to meet today in the lounge on Wednesday to plan what we thought should be the observation part of our assignment. There was some discussion that perhaps we were putting the cart before the horse. We were all set to create this solution, an adaptation of something that would assist people who needed to make decisions, but we hadn’t done the homework of observing people in the decision-making moment. We decided to take a step back and really try to see people in this “divining” process of seeking an answer.

Since decision-making is an internal process (unless the subjects are part of a group decision), we decided to create the situation to observe. (Warning: you are now entering the dreaded Market Research Model.) Maybe a good way to find out if people would appreciate an improvement in decision assistance is to put them in that situation, give them some assistance, and ask them about the experience, taking chance into consideration.

We composed a script of questions (Asking the Oracle) that would standardize the response structure. Tripod, camera and script in hand, we captured innocent guinea pigs from the student lounge for our research needs. Everyone was willing. Some had not heard of the I Ching. Others had, but knew nothing. Still others knew it and were excited about the possibility of casting coins for their fortune. Leah and Yan Yan were dual hosts of our decision-making talk show. I was cameraman. We took turns explaining the history, nature, and rules of casting and let people embrace the process.

Observing people as they experienced this revealed only a few things. They had varying and unusual casting styles. Some took more time to hold the coins and cast decisively (casting clip link). After the casting, the reading of the I Ching response happened in different ways. Some people glanced at the title and first paragraph, then assessed the meaning immediately. Others took a full 2-3 minutes to examine the response, nodding their heads and smiling in agreement in parts (reading clip link). The last questions were deliberately worded to be open ended, so participants could have more of a discussion on how they perceived the whole experience. Most liked it, but some took it as a serious consultation when others treated it as more of a Magic Eight Ball experience.

Our script of questions (Asking the Oracle) added more depth to our observations:

What was the nature of your question? Serious or not-so-serious?
Some asked questions with little real significance, others took the opportunity more seriously. The ones who asked more serious questions were generally more pleased with their answers. They read the answers thoroughly.

Did you find the process too time-consuming?
Most said it was not too time-consuming, although the reading of long text could be tedious.

Was the answer clear? Or confusing?
Often, people were disappointed that there was no definite yes or no presented in the answer, but they did not find the answers confusing.

Does “chance” play a role in some decisions?
Everyone said chance played some role in decision (I think), but some people considered chance a much bigger element in decisions.

Did the I Ching’s answer help you make your decision?
Overall, most people thought the answer helped them make the decision, but some thought the I Ching’s response just confirmed how they already felt. More often, these people considered chance a secondary element in decisions and they were also the ones who asked the not-so-serious questions.

Please describe your experience with this whole process:
The range of opinion ran from fine-but-a-parlor-game to I-can’t-wait-to-do-it-again.

All of us were so caught up in the process of research that we hadn’t actually had the time to determine what we had seen as a group. That would happen tomorrow (After the Pcomp lab practical was completed).

Posted by itp at 07:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)