Wave Shield Update

Currently, the wave shield still does not work. We, however, do have a new lead and will investigate further.

Model Ideas

Group Meetings Update

Sunday: LCC

The LCC students met up in order to complete the wave-shield and in order to begin working on piecing together the electronic/digital component of the structure. However, due to time constraints, we were unable to work past soldering the wave-shield together. Later, Daniel informed us that the wave shield was failing and that he was not sure why and that we would all meet tomorrow in order to try and figure out what was wrong.

We also brainstormed ideas for the sound interaction. We went through a few ideas including: Animal sounds, Space sounds, and Cartoon sounds though we could not decide which was the best because we were not sure how the structure would look and what type of interactions there definitely would be.

Monday: LCC & ID

At our set meeting time, we met and discussed slightly what it is that we needed to complete for class on Wednesday. The ID students decided to go pick up the boards and get the materials available in order to piece together our idea for the structure. The LCC students stuck around trying to figure out what could be wrong with the wave shield but decided that asking the TAs would be the best approach.

Tuesday: LCC & ID

A portion of the LCC students decided to work further on trying to get the wave shield to work. After further inspection, they decided that a few of the pieces were soldered on wrong and had to re-solder them. However, even after this discovery, the wave shield still did not work. The result of the wave shield is still undetermined at the moment.

The rest of the group met in the College of Architecture in order to become assembling the structure, using the  templates that Paul sent out to the group. After the deserved structure was achieved, the placement of the sensors, speakers, and other components was decided.

Group Meeting March 8, 2010

Our meeting was planned to first take place by visiting the prototype in the CoA and deciding where we believed speakers and sensors should be placed, but we discovered that the model broke and was unable to do that. Instead of our scheduled meeting, Daniel caught us up on the arduino and IR range finder experiments he did over the weekend while we waited for In-O to come and catch us up on the latest ID developments. Daniel got both of the range finders (old and new) to work with the arduino board

Interactions:
Varying the tone  based on the range finder
Wave files - play a melody whenever it senses something is in front of it
Faster or slower
Softer or louder
Varying note by the range
Varying the pitch by the range
If the emitter/detector pair is triggered then the range finder's ability changes


Sound ideas:
Digital sounds - 8 bit. This relates to the physical form because of blocky shape is reminiscent of Atari games like Jared mentioned in class.
Nature.
Ice.
We like the idea having soft, natural sounds that are not overpowering but also fit well together.

The users will know how to interact with the design just by approaching it and experimenting with moving through the space. This discovery is a part of the interactivity available to the design. The design of the structure itself affords the movement necessary for interaction. The use of the tunnel-like/cave-like structures affords movement through it and within it.

Arduino Range Finder Tutorial

http://slab.concordia.ca/2009/arduino/ir-range-finder/

Group Meeting Update

Friday: At this meeting, we met to decide what work would be done over the weekend. Since we had to do some research in order for class next week, Daniel and Firaz decided to meet over the weekend to work with some of the technologies we discussed in class to help further our discussion for the next meeting. Yiran first notified us of the change in the structure of the overall design. Instead of having the smooth arch, a more angular arch will be used. Since the design is not finalized yet, it would be more difficult for the LCC students to know what the interaction is with the structure.


Monday: Before this meeting, Daniel and Firaz played with different sensors and lights with the arduino board, experimenting with that different technologies are capable of. In-O caught the LCC students further on the design of the structure and what parts of it had changed. The LCC students caught the ID students up on the technological decisions the class and groups have made.

Currently, the structure does not give much room for interaction. If the structure is too high, it cannot be used as a slide. Children cannot get onto the structure easily and also it would be easy to fall off and get injured. The structure really only allows for movement under the arch.

Daniel and Firaz found out that the IR Rangefinder work well in sunlight. The sun's rays did not affect the sensor in the way we discussed might happen in class. However, the testing did occur in the afternoon, on a relatively cool day and Atlanta can get extremely sunny and hot. Since these sensors will be under the slide, there is a lesser chance of interference from natural sources like sunlight, rain and snow. However, any sensors placed on top of the slides will have to consider these factors and be programmed to ignore their effects.

The speakers are each ~100mA. With the use of two speakers and two arduino boards, the total becomes 250mA. The circuit has two amplifiers also so the total goes up to 275mA.

After discussing with the TA's we learnt that powerful LED's consume 200-400mA of power. Any kind of interaction with lights will require many such powerful LED's which will in turn require a really powerful battery to power the entire circuit. As this would increase the cost of the units beyond the budget, it was decided to leave out the LED's from the design.

Group Meeting February 15th, 2010

In-O's design using the winning groups' ideas

Things we talked about during this meeting:

1. What the overall design of the structure should look like.

2. What type of sensor to use and how the different sensors affect one another

3. How children will interact with the overall structure and the individual module

First idea:

With In-O's idea, we had to alter our idea slightly from having pressure sensors (for an idea of a slide) to detect motion to produce sounds to using sound sensors to detect a presence and producing a sound in return. An echo type of effect will project throughout the structure when one sound is produced because of the ability for each module to detect a sound. 

For our idea, a microphone placed somewhere in the structure to be able to pick up the sounds the child makes. We think that a lower placed microphone might be more interesting and capable of picking up running or walking.

The problems with this idea come from trying to maximize sounds produced by acoustic means instead of relying solely on electronic components. Because none of us are especially knowledgeable in sound engineering, more research has to go into whether or not this idea is possible and especially within our capabilities.

Second idea:

Because of cost, we would not be able to make the entire module be able to detect pressure, but some how cause children to want to press the locations which have the sensors. The problem also stems from one side being more sensitive than the other depending on where the sensor is. Our original idea is to have thin layers of fiberglass sandwich the pressure sensor, but the idea of having to fix a broken pressure sensor would be nearly impossible, the idea was scrapped. 

In the end, we decided to research IR, sound, photo sensors as alternatives to the pressure sensor which allow for easier maintainability and to meet tomorrow in order to finalize our idea.

Our Presentation Set-Up

This is our basic design.

This is our poster and basic design together.

Evolutionary Design Process, Illustration by In-O

Inspiration

One Minute Madness Slides

One Minute Madness Presentation

Dourish, Where the Action Is, Chapter 6

This chapter largely explores the relationship between theory and design. Although some people consider theory and design to be completely different from one another, it is obvious that they can gain value from being put together. The relationship between theory and design is vague. Some consider theory to be abstract while design to be "real", while others believe that theory provides grounds for design and that design is just speculative without understanding how or why it works. Theory makes design real.

The core argument of the book from which the chapter is taken is that social and tangible computing share a common foundation in embodied interaction which is the theoretical perspective. At the heart of tangible computing is the relationship between activities and the space in which they are carried out. Tangible computing explores this three ways: through the configurability of space, through the relationship of the body to task, and through physical constraints. Social computing centrally argues that interaction with software systems needs to be seen in a broader context which has important consequences for the design of interactive technologies. Social computing introduces a new model based on alternative views of human social behavior which observes the sequential organization of interaction does not simply result from the "execution" of a formal plan in the user's head, but instead arises from a process of continual response to the circumstances within which it was being produced. Social computing also involved active participants who improve their actions.

What this means for design is that first, support for the improved sequential organization action by giving users more direct control over how activity is managed is needed and secondly, help to support the process o improvised, situated action by making the immediate circumstance of the work more visible, or in other words, guiding the user where to go.

There are six design principles:
1) Computation is a medium
2) Meaning arises on multiple levels
3) Users, not designers, create and communicate meaning
4) Users, not designers, manage coupling
5) Embodied technologies participate in the world they represent
6) Embodied interactions turns action into meaning

Tangible Products, Tom Djajadiningrat

In this paper Djajadiningrat et al. describe a different approach to interaction design, how they have come to see both appearance and action as carriers of meaning, and how they see usability and aesthetics as inextricably linked. They believe that the real usability challenge lies in communicating what the result of an action will be. It does not suffice to make controls differentiated in appearance and action; the crux of the problem lies in creating meaningful appearance and action. The two ways of solving this problem are

i) Semantic Approach: The functionality of a new product is compared with an existing concept or product with which the user is familiar.
ii) Direct Approach: Meaning is created in the interaction. Affordences only have relevance in relation to what we can perceive and what we can do with our bodies.

There are 3 factors which the authors think play a role in aesthetics of interaction

i) The interaction pattern that spins out between the user and the product.
ii) The richness of motor actions.
iii) Freedom of interaction.

The (w)holy trinity of interaction is respect for all of man's skills, cognitive, perceptual-motor and emotional skills.

In the next section, the authors show us product design examples that focus on making existing functionality accessible in an alternate manner.

In conclusion reiterate that meaningful couplings with formgiving and functions depend on making use of the rich appearance, action potential and inherent feedback of physical objects. Fitting interactive physical objects into man's perceptual and motor capabilities may ultimately provide not only a route to improved usability, but also to an aesthetically rewarding experience.

Ishii & Ullmer, Tangible Bits: Toward Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms

This paper is based on a new concept the authors are trying to create called "Tangible Bits" which incorporates hands-on foreground interactions with background perceptions of ambient light, sound, airflow, etc. The users are allowed to grasp and manipulate bits in their everyday physical objects and surfaces. The goal of Tangible Bits is to bridge the gap between cyberspace and the actual space around the user.

The three main concepts of Tangible Bits are:
1) interactive surfaces- ClearBoard
2) coupling of bits with graspable physical objects- Durrell Bishop's Marbel Answering Machine
3) ambient media for background awareness- Natalie Jeremijenko's Live Wire

Three prototype systems can be used to see these concepts in action:
1) the metaDESK
2) transBOARD
3) ambientROOM

Rieser, Interactivity, Public Art and Architecture

This article discusses the history and complexity of integrating art, architecture and the digital realm and also of the diminishing spatial distance between the subject and the object.

First, Rieser discusses some philosophies of physical presence and digital interaction. Calling forth the philosophies of Benjamin and Baudrillard, he talks about their belief that "the 'aura' of authenticity is lost in the world of media simulation". The creation of the "hyper-real" causes the truth to be lost in a world of "simulcra of simulations". On the other side of the spectrum is Gilles Deleuze who believes that the "simulacrum... [includes] the spectator and the spectator's viewpoint as the sustaining necessity of illusion". The simulacrum is not degraded art but is a representation of the idea of the original. Paul Virilio believes that the universe has split into two realities, the virtual and the actual so that it is not a "simulation" but an alternate reality.

There are origins of the mixture of the electronic arts in public displays throughout history and can be seen from the DaDa, Futurism, and Constructivism and the Bauhaus to the present day.The huge distance between architecture and art caused it to be difficult to integrate the two realms together. In fact, much of what we believe to be innovative was actually first discovered by the EAT - Experiments in Art and Technology, founded 1966. Some of the notable public displays were Rauschenberg's "Open Source" and "Soundings", and EATs Expo 70 Pavilion which emphasized the visitor's responsibility for their own experience.

Some more public displays were Johen and Ester Gerz's "the Moument against Facism"; Michael Hayden's "Arc en Ciel"; Edward Ichnatowicz's "the Senster"; Myron Kreuger's "Videoplace"; Toshio Iwai's "Another Time, Another Space"; Jeffrey Shaw's "The Legible City" and "Revolution"; Perry Hoberman's "Bar Code Hotel"; the BBC's "Mirror"; Char Davies's "Osmose"; Sommerer and Minnoneau's "Plant Growing"; Galloway and Rabinowitz's "Hole in Space"; Paul Sermon's "Telematic Dreaming"; Christian Moller's "Zeil Galerie" and "Electronic Mirror"; Simon Biggs's "Heaven"; "Screening the Virus"; Annie Lovejoy's "Watermark" and "Pause"; and Simon Poulter's UK Ltd.

With each generation of artists/architecture and with new emerging technologies, the space between the art and the audience slowly diminishes to the point where the viewer is a part of the art piece.

Team Meeting Friday, January 22, 2010

While brainstorming we came up with the following ideas that could be included in our design:

• music
• vibration - disabled and non-disabled children
• light
• game or movement
• 5 senses
• things fitting together
• negative space
• climbing (low)
• tunnels
• slides

Through further consideration, we tentatively have an idea where a series of slides are interjoined, alternating sides. Each slide has a representation of a music note and movement down the slides causes the note to play. Also, lights can be incorporated with the slides for a further exploration of the senses.

An Idea

Illustration by In-O

Cabe Space: creat a new era of play

Design and planning for play is a great way to utilize the public place and make the great benefit to people. While there are different roads and space conditions, how to optimize these spaces and facilities for playing has become a crucial point in design and planning.

Two cases have been studied in this article, the first one built in Vauban, Germany focus on an increasing realization that play does not just take place in designated play spaces, but in the whole environment that a child occupies. It can be concluded from this case that the future play site or planning can have the following features:

1) Play does not and should not only happen in playgrounds,

2) Pressures to minimize risk and liability in the public realm can lead to authorities‘playing it safe’, resulting in standardized spaces that fail to delight, educate or offer young people the opportunity to meet or socialize.

3) Play site should encourage children’s creativity, allowing them to take proper risk to learn their boundaries.

4) Involve nature as many nature factors as possible, encourage the use of locally sourced materials and construction by local craft people.

Case two talks about the devotion that has been put into children at the center of improving its play provision, showing that more and more attention has been paid to creat a better and healthier play environment. There are issues to be addressed by the funding provider on inclusive play, creative playpods, creative youth café, etc.

10 principles has been concluded from the golden rules of playsite design: a successful play space is a place in its own right, specially designed for its location, in such a way as to provide as much play value as possible. The rules ask practitioners to imagine a play space that is:

1) Designed to enhance its setting

2) Located in the best possible place

3) Close to nature

4) Designed so that children can play in different ways

5) Geared towards encouraging disabled and able-bodied children to play together

6) Loved by the community

7) Where children from all ages play together

8) Designed to enable children to stretch and challenge themselves in everyway

9) Maintained for play value and environmental sustainability

10) Flexible and able to evolve

As it summarizes, a successful planning for children to play should be a radical drift from traditional Kit, Fence. Carpet style playground. It should become a more naturalistic approach that will provide rich and stimulating play spaces, reflecting local site characteristics and need. Also, it will be by integrating more playable spaces into the public realm that a more child-friendly environment can be created — one that also meets the needs of the wider community.

CABE Space

This briefing concerns the issue of play spaces in Britain. The British government had recently begun an initiative to support child’s play involving many pounds. The author implores new planners to create sites that encourage creativity and natural play as opposed to more traditional methods based on strength and skill. Ten points to a successful play site are listed:

1) Designed to Enhance its setting

2) Located in the best possible space

3) Close to nature

4) Designed so that children can play in different ways

5) Geared towards encouraging disabled and able bodied children to play together

6) Loved by the community

7) Where children of all ages can play together

8) Designed to enable children to stretch and challenge themselves in every way

9) Maintained for play value and environmental sustainability

10) Flexible and able to evolve as the children grow

Overall, a collaborative approach needs to be taken in order to create the best experience.

Senda, Play Structure, pp.11-43

This reading consists of a variety definitions-- like a dictionary in prose. The subject is Play Structures, somewhat circularly described as “spatial structures used for play that form the overall play environment for children.” The author feels that the play environment in their native Japan, perhaps worldwide, is deteriorating. However, a noble study on the nature of Play Structures could lead to its glorious revival-- world peace and cookies for all.

There are four elements to the Play Environment: place, time, friends, and methods. Each of these is required in order for play to occur. Major problems in modern Japan toward play concern less play space, less time to play (with greater emphasis on schoolwork), and a combination of families producing less children and more isolated play options (TV, Video games, the typical culprits… rock and roll?) mean less friends. We’re safe on methods though, so it’s not all bad.

There are six types of play spaces. Nature Space is where children collect things and discover the inevitability of death. Open Space is ideal for organized group games. Street Space is ideal for anything requiring a lot of movement, like riding a bike. Anarchy Spaces, like junkyards, stimulate creativity as well as encourage war and fighting games. Hideout Space is just what it sounds like- think tree house. Lastly, Play Structure Space would be something like a playground where play equipment is found to attract and facilitate play.

There are three levels of play with play equipment. The first is functional, where the player is just learning the ropes. The second is technical where the player develops new ways to interact with the object. The last is social, where the equipment becomes a setting for or aspect of a larger form of play.

There are four types of play with play equipment: resting, challenging, vertiginous thrill-play, and imitative game play. Here are some detailed variants of such:

Different forms of play equipment encourage different methods of play. A swing encourages kids to try crazy stunts, where a jungle gym might inspire exploratory and group games. The author describes an ideal play structure as possessing a circulation factor (endlessly repeatable) with short cuts and a ‘thrill’ factor somewhere in there.

Shackell et al., Design for Play: A guide to creating successful play spaces, Chapters 1& 2

Chapter one starts out asking "What is play?" and "Why is play important?". Play comes in many different forms and differs from child-to-child depending on their own interest and abilities and location and time. There have been fifteen different types of play already identified. While most people consider play to be "active and boisterous", play can be "quiet and contemplative", too.

Play is an important part of a child's physical, social, and cognitive development; it encourages children to explore, take risks, and make their own choices. This is seen especially in outdoor play, where they can freely play, being able to move as they please. Good public spaces for children often benefit, not only the children, but the rest of the society as a whole. These spaces also give parents a place to meet and get help and support for the issues they may be facing with their children. Today's children have fewer opportunities for outdoor play. Seventy-one percent of adults said that they played outside as children compared to twenty-one percent of children today. Childhood and adolescent depression has also been on the increase during this period.

There are many policies in place for children's right to play. In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child and in the UK five outcomes for all children's services defined Every Child Matters: being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and achieving economic well-being.

---

Chapter two gets more specific on the principles for designing successful play spaces.

Because of the number of increasing factors that limit where children and young people have access to, it is even more important now to have play spaces outdoors and where a large number of activities and environments are provided.

Successful play spaces offer movement and physical activity, stimulate the five senses, are good places for social interactions, allow for children to manipulate natural and fabricated materials, and offer children challenges.

The golden rule when creating inspiring places for play is "A successful play space is a place in its own right, specially designed for it's location, in such a way as to provide as much play value as possible. There are ten underlying principles to this design-led approach. These ten principles depend on all those involved in order to create a space children will want to occupy.

1. Imagine a play space designed to enhance its setting
2. Imagine a play space in the best possible place
3. Imagine a play space close to nature
4. Imagine a play space where children can play in different ways
5. Imagine a play space where disabled and non-disabled children play together
6. Imagine a play space loved by the community
7. Imagine a play space where children of all ages play together
8. Imagine a play space where children can stretch and challenge themselves in everyway
9. Imagine a play space maintained for play value and environmental sustainability
10. Imagine a play space that evolves as children grow.

Ground Up City - The Place of Play, Liane Lefaivre

In this article, Liane Lefaivre makes the case for the importance of playgrounds in the urban landscape, and how over the years, architects and city planners have tended to ignored them completely. She starts off by taking us back to the Dadist movement where many artists tried to bring in more play and humor into their work. We are given examples of how play is an integral part of every artists work. Jean Piaget, for example viewed play as a key element in human cognition and the growth of intelligence. He is responsible for the learning by play approach which he found more interesting than rote learning.

Most of the article discusses the playgrounds of Amsterdam, and how the contributions of three people, Van Eesteren, Aldo van Eyck and Jacoba Mulder, helped transform its urban landscape. In a remarkable success story of participatory design between the Municipal Department of Public Works of Amsterdam and its citizens, the total number of playgrounds rose from 30 in 1947 to over a 1000 by 1968. Lefaivre goes on to discuss the lives of each of these three visionaries and how their experiences helped them achieve their goals.

Jane Jacobs countered Aldo van Eycks fantasy of playgrounds and transforming children. She argued, and quite correctly so, that the abundance of the small playgrounds interwoven into the urban fabric, brought the children out onto the streets. Children would spend most of their time on the streets while the traditional parks with all their play equipment and running grounds became sites for criminal activities.

In conclusion, Lefaivre reemphasizes the importance of the Amsterdam playgrounds and how they managed to create a sense of community. It was arguably the most successful design tool of the twentieth century and still is largely ignored only because play was, and still is, not taken as seriously as it should be.

The Nature of Play, Doll

In this paper Doll, gives us an overview of how urban settings are transformed into play spaces for children and adults alike. He shows us examples of how free minds use buildings, parks, streets and even empty spaces creatively and transform them into play spaces. Even demolition sites offer artists a platform to express themselves. A striking example of this is Florentijn Hofman's Blue House in Rotterdam, where he painted the facade of a building earmarked for demolition with 700 liters of blue paint to create a 'heavenly' phenomenon. There are several such examples, where artists use simplistic alterations to convert a routine boring site into a place for fun and games.