Yuqian Ma

I had a meeting with Sarah to clarify some thesis requirements. I initially thought my topic was “open source,” but in reality, I wanted to explore my “personal feelings about coding.” So I asked Sarah if I could tweak the thesis topic. Additionally, since it’s based on personal experience, I wondered what kind of research I should conduct and what level of work would be sufficient for a thesis.

Sarah didn’t think it was a problem to tweak the topic. Regarding research, she said that finding similar artworks, figuring out the logic and mechanisms for building the installation are all considered research. The only requirement was the actual creation process. She advised me to let the making process guide myself.

Although Sarah answered my question, the most valuable piece of advice I received was “honesty.” It’s my thesis, so as long as I’m honest with myself, I can determine the work and direction. I initially misunderstood the thesis concept. I thought I had to set the goal or the big question at the beginning and couldn’t change it. But now, I realize it’s a process that allows me to explore. During this process, I can change directions and clarify the thesis as I go, instead of setting the goal right from the start. (Some people may be able to define their direction from the start, but not me.)

Once again, the making process is all I need at this stage.

For those who want some context on what I’m tweaking for my thesis, I’ve included the Miro link here: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVMbW0LNQ=/?moveToWidget=3458764551845883356&cot=14

It’s like two circles: My feelings about coding vs. Open Source. While there are some overlaps, I want to focus on my feelings first. I’ll touch on Open Source in the future.

As for my current prototype, it’s an odor machine that represents a code smell.

Right after talking with Sarah, I had some thoughts about my feelings towards coding: in the context of the AI era, my code taste is like a nostalgia for handicrafts during the industrial age. What I’m doing can be considered a pre-AI era human archive. Will I have other thoughts in the next few days? Perhaps. I’ll let the making process and conversations guide me.

I shared the details of my last mentor meeting with my group and gained some insights from others’ experiences.

One point I took from Wentao’s sharing was to prepare the thesis for both Zoom presentations and on-site shows as separate events. This is because our environments are different. We can consider them as two distinct stages. Additionally, Sarah Hakani advised us to document as much as possible for future reference.

While discussing the topic of consciousness with Jason, I became curious about the psychedelic experience. I find myself lacking the imagination to truly resonate with the feeling. I’m eager to give it a try during the Shanghai session!

(4.6)I had a meeting with my group and a meeting with my mentor in one night. In the group meeting, Sarah Hakani encouraged me to do what I want to do instead of considering everyone’s feedback.

The chat I had with my mentor Max was just great! He steered the project direction back to my original feeling, which I’m excited to continue!

As it was the first time we met, I shared my previous works and the current prototype. Regarding the pen plotter prototype I was making, he offered some meaningful suggestions and keenly pointed out potential issues with it. Ideas included creating images as a time-series stack, which emphasized cooperation, and offering users credits to attract participants. Having too many interaction steps to show the git flow was one possible issue that needed attention.

I really appreciate the following discussion because Max shared the feeling with me. He encouraged me to continue with my personal feelings. To address the issue of feelings being too abstract, he suggested that I could list emotions to express feelings. This idea opened up my mind! So this was like an “implement” for conveying the feeling. It is difficult to express the exact same feelings, but we can find derivatives or the context that generates sensations! Another idea he gave me was that I could even create a video of a drama that happened in GitHub issues without using high-tech. Both of these ideas liberated my thinking about ideas and forms. Compared to them, the prototype I was making was more like a “downgrade” instead of an “implement”!

So the tasks I can do now are listing emotions and finding stories. I feel like new ideas will come to me soon as new inspirations!

I spoke with five reviewers. Although each session was quite brief, the feedback from Show-A-Thing proved to be truly valuable. It forced me to reevaluate my entire thesis, which was both daunting and exciting! The primary medium of my thesis involves using a pen plotter. You can see here: https://itp.nyu.edu/lowres/thesis2023/2023/04/06/1-1-meeting-5-and-sketches/

The first piece of feedback addressed the need to teach non-coders the git process. While non-coders can learn the flow of git, it’s essential to clarify the purpose. Another reviewer found the concepts of branches and forks interesting due to the potential they offer. However, they suggested organizing the project as a story to provide non-coders with a meaningful context.

A critical question raised was about the final output: would it be printed papers or the participants’ process? If the latter, I could even use a camera to record the entire process. The last reviewer recommended that I write an “Artist’s statement,” something I had never considered before.

Regarding form and technical issues, one reviewer suggested using user-generated data as an intermediary for the pen plotter. This idea broadened my perspective, as even a simple drawing could be filled with doodles.

In conclusion, the central question is not the form but the purpose. I feel compelled to reconsider the title “Tangible Open Source” and determine the main issue I want to address.

(Meeting on March 28 and thesis class and following sketches)

I discussed two prototype ideas with Sarah. One uses voxels as a code metaphor but is not as practical for an installation.

The other one uses a pen plotter. It metaphorizes coding as drawing. A user “forks” from the latest commit or a previous commit. Then, they continue to draw sketches, just like revising code. After drawing, the user leaves a commit message to submit a “commit.” The pen plotter will print the latest commit as a snapshot every hour (or at other intervals). The printing process is like the building process of code. Finally, it is printed, as if the software is released.

During the class, I received meaningful feedback. One concern was what a user should do during the interval. Suggestions included leaving an email and sending the released version to them. The other concern was about people’s roles in this AI era. In addition, someone raised the question of the relationship between this installation and the open source community.

Here’s a current version sketch:

During my discussion with Sarah last week, we tackled some key points related to my project. I was struggling with the prototype because I wanted to avoid showing the coding interface directly to the participant. Sarah advised me to create a prototype and experiment with different metaphors to see what works and what doesn’t. Additionally, we came up with a new idea to allow multiple participants to interact with the installation together, which emphasizes collaboration in “open source” through an offline approach. Sarah also reminded me that there are various ways to collaborate beyond coding, such as drawing, collage, or using emojis. Considering the project from a low-tech or non-tech perspective allowed me to expand my ideas and even consider creating an “open source card game”. Finally, I realized that there were two directions mixed in my project, one for educational purposes and the other focused on the personal taste of coders in distinguishing good and bad code. While the latter is challenging to express, I plan to delve deeper into the open source community to explore this direction. However, for the thesis, my primary focus will be on the educational aspect.

Commented in the doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UQvvR9e5_N1W__AEqCGxuFeELE2YY0R2FKXB_aTAhLE/edit

Another late post.

During our discussion, we talked about exploring the mind models of other coders. However, I found it challenging to ask them directly as they might feel hesitant to share. To overcome this, Sarah suggested using alternative methods like drawing, sculpting, or using clay to represent their mind models. These unconventional methods proved to be interesting and effective.

Sarah also shared a helpful structure for generating ideas, which involved creating three columns: input, process, and output, and listing items under each category. I could then randomly select items from each column to generate sketches and storyboards for my project prototype.

We also delved into the impact of AI on coding and how it might lead to new metaphors. Sarah recommended addressing fundamental questions related to this topic.

A late post, I’m struggling to get out of the procrastination from spring break.

I had meaningful feedback in last peer meeting:

• Consider making the interface/hardware transparent and clearly showing how everything works together.
• A device example: an electron synthesizer which demonstrates the composition.
• Explore a universal metaphor that can be understood by both coders and non-coders, rather than relying on jargon or technical terms.
• Emphasize the unique community model of open source and how it provides opportunities for collaboration.
• Consider the tension between individual privacy and sharing/collaboration, and find ways to incentivize collaboration instead of secrecy.

I had a good meeting with Sarah on my Friday night.

I explained my topic development from “open source community” to “representing the open source code”. Because the term “community” is too abstract for me to make a project. But I also wanted to know what if I want to make a project about the open source community.

Sarah gave an angle to consider it: using more specific words to describe the project. For example, the project describes/explains/creates/visualizes open source communities.

At present, I am considering developing a machine to depict the underlying code of software. However, I am concerned that this idea may be too narrow in scope for a thesis. Then we delved deeper into this topic during our discussion.

When coding, I have a mental model that resembles crafting a handicraft. I shared this idea with Sarah, who found it intriguing and suggested that I consult other programmers about their mental models. I believe this is a valuable approach as I haven’t come across any discussions on programming at this level before. I can also consider which mental models I can provide to best represent open source projects.

Additionally, we started considering other possible angles, such as extractive economy versus circular economy/regenerative economy, which I hadn’t previously considered.