In “Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better,” Donald Arthur Norman puzzles over the question of why things with attractive designs work better. Similarly, Robert McMillan touches upon how Margaret Hamilton’s improved code to fix a bug that wiped out the navigational data used by the Apollo 8 crew. While reading these articles, I could not help but think that we consider a design attractive if it enables us to use a product without risk or extra effort. When McMillan argues that attractive things allow people to use their creative abilities to the fullest, this statement implies that well-thought-out design enables us to make the most out of a product.
As I often find myself dissatisfied when an app or a program crashes, I believe that thorough product testing is crucial for creating an attractive design. Had NASA approved Hamilton’s suggestions, it would have allowed her to create a better code and minimize the risks for the astronauts. These articles demonstrate that researchers and scientists realized the importance of an attractive design and now see it as something that brings enjoyment, enhances people’s cognitive and creative abilities, and improves a product’s usability.
So I feel like I have heard Norman say somewhere that when designing, one should focus more on the usefulness of the work, and reading this it felt like she was correcting the notion that designs should have some emotions attached to them sometimes. I agree with her/him- I’m confused- when she says that emotions(affects as she calls it) affect how one thinks when solving a problem which I also find interesting. I like how she uses real-life situations to describe what she means -I don’t know why I am referring to her as she if it’s he then my bad. For the second reading, as a computer scientist or an upcoming one, I was really shocked that this field was introduced kind of by a woman. It was my first time hearing this story and honestly, I didn’t expect NASA to ignore that possibility of an error. All in all, Hamilton’s story is a motivational one.
When two soulmates meet, both of their worlds light up. That’s exactly what’s happening in this assignment. I chose to use mine and my bestfriend’s matching bracelets to make the circuit complete and the LED light up. If the bracelets don’t touch, the LED won’t go on.
COMPONENTS:
I used the following elements to make the circuit work:
-The matching bracelets (the conductive part is the gold rods)
-The following elements from the Sparkfun Kit:
-The circuit:
I had so much fun working on this assignment. The process was straightforward and I didn’t face any challenges because the idea is simple. If I do this assignment again, I would maybe try to make it more aesthetic. For now, I like how it turned out because it matches the requirements of the assignment efficiently.
In the previous reading from Don Norman, he talked about how design flaws in everyday objects make it difficult for normal people to operate them, and how an object that is “usable but ugly” is more beneficial that an object that is visually pleasing but unusable; but his point was misinterpreted by many and had people thinking he advocated for usability over appealing design. In this reading, he clarifies that this was not to discredit visual appeal, but to bring usability to the same level of importance as it. He hopes that “the future of everyday things [will] be ones that do their job, that are easy to use, and that provide enjoyment and pleasure” [p. 41], emphasizing that even though usability gets the job done, it is still important for the design to be appealing and the functionality to be easy to figure out, because in the end, “it is time to have more pleasure and enjoyment in life” [p.41]. At the same time, he says what I think is the crux of his point: “To be truly beautiful, wondrous, and pleasurable, the product has to fulfill a useful function, work well, and be usable and understandable” [p. 42]. And I can’t argue with that.
Her Code Got Humans on the Moon
Honestly, before reading this, I only knew that Maragaret Hamiltion was a someone who did something in the Apollo missions. But what I didn’t know was the depth of her involvement in the missions; without her, there might not have been a mission. It is inspiring to learn about her essentially pioneering systems programming and leading the software division of 400 people, all while mothering a 4 year old. Makes me think about how I can barely finish my assignments on time even without the taking-care-of-a-4-year-old part. It was also interesting to read about the “That would never happen” story, which is a very apt representation of human fallibility. The purpose of good system programming, I believe, is to minimize this exact fallibility – in other words, to be smarter than humans.
The two readings explore the broad subjects of design, usability, and the impact of emotions on cognition. The first reading (Emotion & design) focuses on the role that emotions play in designing and solving problems. It highlights how our emotions influence our perceptions, decisions, and behaviors. It also discusses how, in design, we frequently have to strike a balance between an object’s usability and beauty.
The second reading (Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself) delves more into Margaret Hamilton’s contributions to the Apollo space program. It illustrates how important software design and usability were to the Apollo missions’ success even if it doesn’t specifically address emotions or usability. The development of flight software by Margaret Hamilton transformed our capabilities in space.
The lessons I learned from both the article and the book is that design and usability principles are crucial in a variety of contexts, from ordinary objects to space missions. Additionally, they recommend that while designing things to improve their functionality and make people happier, we take into account the ways in which our emotions shape our thoughts.
The readings also support the notion that emotions have a significant influence on our decision-making. According to the first reading (Emotion & design), our emotions cause our brains to generate chemicals that have an impact on our perception of reality and decision-making. It’s interesting to observe that our attention span increases and our thinking narrows down when we experience depression or anxiety. However, when we’re happy, we think more broadly and creatively.
Although it doesn’t address this specifically in the second reading, it makes a suggestion that our feelings have an impact on our actions. It demonstrates that anxiety causes us to concentrate intensely (depth-first processing), which is advantageous in some circumstances. However, when we’re in a good mood, we’re more inclined to use our imagination and focus on the wider picture.
The book delves into the intricate balance between usability and aesthetics in design, drawing from examples like three different teapots that serve various purposes. It resonates with me as it highlights the versatility of design preferences based on different situations and moods. The author’s exploration of how emotions influence problem-solving and task performance is particularly intriguing, emphasizing the significance of considering both positive and negative emotions in design. It’s a reminder that a good design should strike a balance between usability and visual appeal. Understanding the impact of emotions on the user’s experience seems crucial, reinforcing the need for designs that accommodate various emotional contexts for a better overall user experience.
Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself
in the 1960s, Margaret Hamilton broke barriers and redefined the course of technological history. Working in a male dominated field, her unexpected journey into the Apollo space program played a pivotal role in the moon landing. As a young mother and programmer, she altered her career trajectory, which resulted into the creation of software that shaped human capabilities and space exploration. Hamilton’s leadership in software development became instrumental in the success of the Apollo mission, expanding the realm of software engineering and setting a foundation for future technological advancements. I strongly agree that her pioneering work revolutionized the role of software across various industries, leaving an enduring legacy that continues today through her company, Hamilton Technologies, at the forefront of technological innovation. Her influence not only propelled humanity’s reach beyond Earth but also reshaped the landscape of computer science and technology which by itself is a ground breaking achievement.
This reading brings up a crucial aspect of creating interactive art that, at first glance, might seem counterintuitive: the idea that as artists, we shouldn’t over-explain or over-interpret our own work. It highlights how artists, in their enthusiasm to convey their message or intention, can sometimes go too far in explaining every element of their interactive piece. This over-explanation can, paradoxically, hinder the audience’s experience by limiting the space for interpretation.
What I found most compelling about this perspective is the notion that when we meticulously detail our work, we unintentionally strip it of its openness to interpretation. Art, and especially interactive art, thrives on the engagement of the audience, on their ability to find personal meaning and significance in what they see and experience. When we, as artists, leave less room for interpretation by offering explicit descriptions or interpretations, we inadvertently limit the depth and richness of the user experience.
Physical computing
I find it interesting how physical computing is filled with recurring project themes that continue to inspire innovation and creativity. What strikes me the most is the realization that even within these well-worn themes, there’s an abundance of untapped potential for originality and fresh perspectives.
Reading through the article, it was hard not to draw parallels with a discussion we had in class before the fall break about creativity. The recurring themes in physical computing reminded me of the principle we explored during our discussions: that creativity often emerges when we build upon existing ideas and frameworks. In many ways, this article reaffirms the idea that true creativity doesn’t always require entirely novel concepts. Instead, it encourages us to embrace the familiar and established as a foundation for our own creative endeavors.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
I agree that art should be open to interpretation. I think interactive art requires time from the artist and is open to change and manipulation in response to the user’s experience. The first time an artist does an interactive art it might not go as planned especially if he/she does not add instructions, but that is ok because they would learn and start up conversations with the viewers and redefine it to make it work better. I believe a good interactive piece is self-explanatory and does what the artist expects at least 50/60% of the time. However, some interactive art pieces are made to be experienced differently.
I liked the part about listening to the audience while they are experiencing the piece because this starts interesting conversations and may inspire new ideas. I agree that an interactive artist is like a director. He/she proposes materials and interactions to the audience and then they can interpret it in ways that express themselves and the artist too.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)
I agree that recreating things can lead to further developments. There is a book I once read called “Steal Like an Artist” and it talks about how everything we do is inspired by things that already exist. A lot of technological advances came to exist because they were recreating something but found a new thing on the way. If we think of coding, for example, we would have not been so advanced and creative if we kept figuring out the logic that is already there. Instead, we take the pre-existing logic and then add to it and develop it to be better.
I enjoyed the piece on Floor Pads because it seems simple and fun. I also think that the meditation helper is cool. As a person who dies yoga I think is a really good way to focus and try to maintain your inner balance at home. However, I am not sure how it “reacts to your state of mind” because it might not be accurate. Thus, it’s pretty cool if it can be accurate.
In the fascinating world of Arduino projects, creativity knows no bounds. One project that particularly caught my attention was the creation of a sound sensor-controlled LED using the Arduino UNO. To embark on this journey, I realized that I needed a sound sensor, which wasn’t included in the kit I was provided. My curiosity got the best of me, and I ordered the module to explore how it would all come together. The end result was a captivating LED that reacted to sound, and today, I’ll guide you through how I crafted my own sound sensor-controlled LED using an Arduino UNO.
Calibrating of Sound Sensor
Before diving into the assignment, it’s essential to calibrate the sound sensor for accurate results. The sound sensor module comes equipped with a potentiometer, and I followed these calibration steps:
I adjusted the potentiometer until I reached the desired threshold value.
I stood in front of the sensor and clapped my hands.
After continuous adjustments to the potentiometer, I observed the LED blinking.
Required Hardware
Arduino UNO
Sound sensor module
LED
Resistor (330 ohms)
Jumper wires
Breadboard
USB cable
Computer with Arduino IDE installed
Sound Sensor Module
Circuit Diagram
The circuit diagram was created using Fritzing and includes the sound sensor, LED, resistor, Arduino UNO, and breadboard.
const int soundSensorPin = 5; // Sound sensor connected to digital pin 5
const int ledPin = 4; // LED connected to digital pin 4
void setup() {
pinMode(soundSensorPin, INPUT);
pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// Read the sound sensor input
int soundValue = digitalRead(soundSensorPin);
if (soundValue == HIGH) {
// If sound is detected, turn on the LED
digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
} else {
// No sound detected, turn off the LED
digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
}
}
By following these steps, the code effectively monitors the sound for claps or any sound after detection, and the Arduino sends the signal of ‘High’ to the LED.
Connecting the Components
I connected the sound sensor to the Arduino UNO as follows:
VCC of the sound sensor to 5V on the Arduino.
GND of the sound sensor to GND on the Arduino.
D0 of the sound sensor to digital pin 5 on the Arduino.
Connect the LED to the Arduino
I connected the longer leg (anode) of the LED to digital pin 4 on the Arduino.
I connected the shorter leg (cathode) of the LED to a 330-ohm resistor.
I connected the other end of the resistor to the GND on the Arduino.
Hardware Implementation
Video Illustration
Working Explanation, Testing, Fine-Tuning, and Conclusion:
My quest to build an LED controlled by a sound sensor began with designing the circuit and coding it using the Arduino program. I eagerly tested the system by making noises close to the sensor after uploading the code, which caused the captivating LED response. As I fine-tuned the ‘threshold’ value, I found the sweet spot of sensitivity, ensuring the sensor responded with precision. In short, this assignment not only revealed the art of sensor interaction but also brought sound and light together in perfect harmony. With the Arduino UNO as my conductor, I transformed a simple kit into an extraordinary, hands-free LED display, illustrating the limitless possibilities of the Arduino world.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
This reading showed me an interesting point of view, but I’m not too sure if I agree with it. Tigoe says that you should not interpret your own interactive art, but rather let the audience figure it out for themselves. The entire premise of this is that you shouldn’t think of interactive art as a finished painting or sculpture. However, I find myself disagreeing with Tigoe. Firstly, even with a finished painting, no two people will interpret it the same way given they are free to think anything about the painting. Although I understand Tigoe’s point of view of not confining the art piece to your own direction, I do not think that you shouldnot interpret your own art pieces. If I want my audience to have a very specific experience, I will give them my interpretation or the direction that I took with the piece beforehand to guide their thoughts. It entirely depends upon what I want the piece to be. Of course, people can just ignore these directions, but I believe that there is still room for the audience’s personal interpretations of the guided art piece. Like a painting, maybe I want to express myself with the art piece. If you want what Tigoe wants, then his recommendations are very helpful. However, there is no right or wrong way to do interactive art.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
Exploring the themes in physical computing classes highlights a cool mix of established ideas and personal creativity. Even though some projects come up every year, it’s not about repeating but reimagining them with your own touch. The examples, from theremin-like instruments to remote hugs, show there’s a lot you can do.
The mention of different time periods and tech advancements adds context, showing how physical computing keeps evolving. I like the focus on projects that involve people rather than just machines. It’s a reminder that the connection between users and their creations is what makes physical computing special. Overall, this collection of different projects is like a guide to show the creative possibilities in interactive art.
