Week 11 – Reading Reflection

Pullin’s argument challenges the lazy division between design as aesthetic indulgence and disability as pure function. He dismantles the notion that assistive devices must be invisible or “normalized,” suggesting instead that disability could (and should) be a space for expressive, creative design. That was a refreshing perspective. The hearing aid, the wheelchair, the prosthetic are cultural objects that communicate identity (not just medical equipment).

Yet, what I appreciate most in Pullin’s framing is how he exposes the moral vanity of “inclusive design.” The impulse to hide difference in the name of inclusion often erases individuality altogether. Still, I wonder whether his optimism about designers embracing disability aesthetics underestimates the market’s conservatism; we live in a world where even fashion struggles to tolerate imperfection. The essay makes me question whether good design serves comfort or visibility, and whether true accessibility might require celebrating discomfort, making difference not something to be hidden, but worn, literally, in style.

Reading Reflection – Week 11

Design Meets Disability

I do not associate medical or disability-assistive products with design. To me, it only mattered how functional or practical they were, and not their aesthetic value. What I appreciated about the author’s perspective was how they treated people with disabilities as a distinct user group whose preferences and needs are often overlooked by designers and engineers.

Further into the reading, I started to feel bad that people with disabilities are often forced to choose between a device that functions well and one that’s subtle or aesthetically pleasing. These goals seem to conflict with current design approaches. Even within the category of disability, there’s a wide range of experiences that should shape how products are created.

I really liked the author’s example of eyeglasses. Glasses are no longer seen as a disability aid, but are now a fashion statement. Although, to be honest, personally glasses have always just been a medical necessity for me. But also I refuse to get laser because I now think I look better with glasses anyways. I could think of some other examples back from high-school as well: hearing aids and braces for teeth.

I strongly believe that the notion that assistive devices must remain discreet reflects a broader limitation or bias in design thinking. It is a kind of hesitation in creating bold, confident products that users would actually be proud to display. However, I do think that with every passing year, adaptive fashion is becoming increasingly popular, and this will help begin a new era of accessibility.

Week 11 – Final Project Idea

Mini DJ Booth: Interactive Sound Console

Concept Overview

The Mini DJ Booth is a physically interactive sound system that combines Arduino and p5.js to simulate the experience of a digital DJ console. The project uses four physical buttons connected to an Arduino board, each mapped to a unique beat and corresponding visual effect displayed through p5.js. When a button is pressed, a signal is sent from the Arduino to the computer via serial communication, triggering both a sound loop and a colorful visual animation on screen.

The physical setup will be built using cardboard, designed to resemble a miniature DJ booth with labeled, color-coded buttons—each representing a different sound or track. The interface invites users to experiment with rhythm and visual design, mimicking the creative flow of live mixing.

Visual Prototype (Generated on ChatGPT)

Interaction Design

  • Input: Arduino detects button presses.
  • Processing (Thinking): The signal is sent to p5.js, which identifies which button was activated.
  • Output: p5.js responds by playing a corresponding beat and generating a synchronized visual (color and shape animation) on screen.

Each of the four buttons triggers:

  1. A unique sound (e.g., drum, bass).
  2. A distinct color palette and animation style that matches the mood of the beat.

The more users press the buttons after one another they create different beats and sounds mimicking a real DJ booth.

Materials

  • Arduino
  • 4 push buttons (I wanna use the bigger ones that we saw during the lab tour as they feel more tactile and look better overall)
  • 4 resistors (10kΩ)
  • Jumper wires
  • Breadboard
  • USB cable
  • Laptop running p5.js
  • Cardboard and paint/decor for the booth design

User Experience

Users interact with the booth by pressing different buttons to layer and remix beats. The immediate audio-visual feedback creates a playful and performative experience, encouraging rhythm exploration and creative expression. The physicality of pressing real buttons, combined with the digital response on screen, merges tactile and visual engagement, much like an actual DJ setup.

Goal

To explore how physical input devices (Arduino buttons) can enhance digital multimedia experiences (p5.js visuals and sounds), creating an accessible, low-cost prototype that bridges sound, motion, and design.

Week 10: Reading Response

After reading this article, I was reminded of Mark Zuckerberg’s quote where he said that the next biggest innovation is going to be VR. The author emphasized that the incorporation of more senses into these technological devices allows people to really interact with them in a much deeper sense, whereas smartphones are just composed of screens and we just scroll on the glass, not getting any feedback. At first, I thought we still get tactile feedback from the screen. For instance, when we are playing games and get attacked by someone, we feel the vibration. But that does not foster any intimate interaction between users and the device itself. What makes an experience more unique and immersive is stimulating as many human senses as possible, something that I learned in the class I took when I was a sophomore, called Immersive Experiences. I think for my final project, I want to do something that can impact people’s thoughts and make them reflect on their past experiences through immersive experiences. Through these two articles, I learned that we are shifting to a world where the distance between technology and humans is getting much closer. I am somewhat worried about it because there are already cases where people get confused about their identities since they spend most of their time in a digital world. I think it is best to create a boundary between us and technology to remain humanities in this world.

Week 10 Reading Reflection

Reading Bret Victor’s “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” made me think differently about how I use technology. The idea that a tool has “two sides”—one that fits the person and one that fits the solution—really stuck with me. It made me realize that most of the digital tools I use today, like phones or tablets, seem to fit the solution well but not necessarily the person. They make things efficient, but they don’t always feel natural or engaging to use. It made me question whether convenience has come at the cost of a deeper, more human form of interaction.

The part about the hands also made me pause. Victor reminds us that our hands aren’t just for manipulation—they’re for feeling. That distinction hit home because I often forget how much information comes through touch. When I’m drawing, typing, or even cooking, my hands constantly sense texture, pressure, and movement. But when I’m on a screen, all that disappears. His point that “touch does the driving and vision helps from the backseat” made me see how backwards our relationship with technology has become. I depend entirely on my eyes, while my hands just tap glass.

I connected most with his frustration about “pictures under glass.” It made me realize how passive I’ve become when using digital devices—how I only swipe, scroll, or pinch, instead of actually making or feeling something. It reminded me how satisfying it is to sketch on paper or build something physical, where every motion feels responsive. Victor’s ideas made me want to look for tools and experiences that let my hands do more than just point. It’s a call to design and use technology that reconnects me to my body, not one that distances me from it.

Week 10 Reading Reflection

I really agreed with what Bret Victor was saying in “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design.” The piece did exactly what it was meant to do; it made me aware of something I never really saw as a problem before. When he talked about “Pictures Under Glass,” I honestly felt a bit called out. I’ve never questioned how flat and disconnected our interactions with screens have become; I just accepted them as normal.

Working with Arduino this semester made his point hit even harder. For some reason, it feels so much more rewarding than coding in p5, maybe because I can actually touch and see what I’m creating. It’s not just visuals on a screen; it exists in the real world. Even our first project, where we had to design creative switches that didn’t rely on hands, felt like a step toward the kind of thinking Victor wants designers to embrace.

I don’t know enough about the field to say whether designs nowadays are really “timid,” but I get where he’s coming from. The black-and-white photography analogy stuck with me; it shows how something can be revolutionary for its time but still just a transition toward something better. This reading made me rethink what “interaction” really means and imagine a future for technology that feels more connected to the body, not just the screen.

Week 10 – Musical Instrument (with Elyaziah)

Inspiration:

For this week’s project, the main inspo for our instrument was Stormae’s Song “Alors on Danse”. We were mainly inspired by the way that the songs main notes are split into 3 notes of varying pitches, with one sound constantly playing in the background. For that reason we varied the pitches of the three sounds our project produces with a 4th note that is constantly playing when the button is pressed.

Concept:

For this week’s project, we used 3 light sensors to play sounds on the piezo speaker, with one note being played constantly when a button is clicked. With the light sensor, once the user’s finger covers the sensor that is when the note is played. Furthermore, we have three sensors each of which plays a different pitch on the piezo speaker. The condition that allows for this is the reading of the sensor in comparison to the threshold we defined. An additional component we added was the button that allows for the sounds to be played on the piezo speaker and then stopped once the button is pressed again.

Code:

int photoPins[3] = {A0, A1, A2};// first we define a list of integers holding the analog pins
int buttonPin = 2; // digi pin 2 for the buttons
int piezzoPin = 8; //digi pin 8 for the piezzo speaker

int threshold = 700; //this is the threshold fo rte light/no light intensity that worked wit our light sensors in our environment/lighting

bool prevPhoto[3] = {false, false, false}; //keeping track of whether the light sebsir was interacted with or not false initially
bool prevButton = false; //initially false
bool buttonState = false;//initially false

void setup() {
  pinMode(buttonPin, INPUT_PULLUP); //for the button pint as an input for the arduino
  pinMode(piezzoPin, OUTPUT); //setting the buzzor pin as output so the arduino sneds the sound signal
  Serial.begin(9600); // serial monitor for debugging
}

void loop() {
  for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { //looping over the 3 sensors to reasd their analog value
    int value = analogRead(photoPins[i]);
    bool tapped = value < threshold; //comparing the value captured by the sensor and the defined threshold
    if (tapped && !prevPhoto[i]) { //checking for tap in the current state compared to prev
      if (i == 0) tone(piezzoPin, 440, 200); // translates to A0
      if (i == 1) tone(piezzoPin, 523, 200); // translates to A1
      if (i == 2) tone(piezzoPin, 659, 200); // translates to A2
    }
    prevPhoto[i] = tapped; //MAKING SURE TO NOTE it as tapped to have a singular tap rather than looping

    Serial.print(value); //serial print
    Serial.print(",");
  }

  bool pressed = digitalRead(buttonPin) == LOW; //setting the reading of the button to low meaning the button is pressed
  if (pressed && !prevButton) { //when the button is pressed state changes from not pressed(false) to presssed(true)
    buttonState = !buttonState;
    if (buttonState) tone(piezzoPin, 784);// if toggled on play a continuoue G5 tone
    else noTone(piezzoPin); //otherwise stop the buzzer
  }
  prevButton = pressed;

  Serial.println(pressed ? "1" : "0"); //for monitoring purposes

  delay(50);//short delay
}

Disclaimer: Some AI/ChatGPT was used to help with debugging and allowing multiple elements to work cohesively.

More Specifically:

1- When trying to debug, to check if button is pressed is true on the serial monitor (this line: Serial.println(pressed ? “1” : “0”); //for monitoring purposes)
2- Recomended values for frequency in hertz to mimic Alors on Danse (if (i == 0) tone(piezzoPin, 440, 200); // translates to A0 if (i == 1) tone(piezzoPin, 523, 200); // translates to A1 if (i == 2) tone(piezzoPin, 659, 200); // translates to A2) The SECOND parameter

Schematic: Demo:

IMG_8360

Future Improvements:

As for the future improvements, one main thing we wanted to capture in this project is being to overlap the sounds, but since we were working with one piezo speaker, we were not able to do that. To address this we aim to learn more about how we can maybe start playing the sounds from our laptops instead of the physical speaker we connect to the Arduino. Other improvements could be exploring how we can incorporate different instrument sounds maybe and create an orchestra like instrument.

Week 10: Reading Reflection

Victor’s brief but powerful rant on the future of interaction design continued to open my eyes to the extent that technology has cut off human beings from the physical world. For him, the so-called “future” of design with its touchscreen and glossy surface is not a revolution but merely a very limited advance that pays no attention to the human side of things. He completely turns the issue around and states that our hands are the most delicate locks for the least skillful and least tech-savvy users. The describes actions as elementary as page turning and a glass of water holding caused me to realize the extent of feedback and consciousness that humans get from touch. At this point, one might conclude that most of the devices one has nowadays are the ones that take the feedback away from them. His term “Pictures Under Glass” truly resonated with me since it brilliantly encapsulates the notion of how dull and one-dimensional technology interactions can appear. The reading of his rant made me reflect on the directors’ point that soft human qualities should not be engendered by modern technology. In my opinion, he wants us to know that true advancement should keep us emotionally attached to our creations while tech, unfortunately, does the opposite.

In his later responses, Victor makes it clear that he was not trying to destroy de facto technology but to show the way to future development. He underlines that the iPad and the likes are already very important and revolutionary, and still, they are not the end. The comparison of the iPad with the old black-and-white photography was very pleasant to me. It was good for the time but the market for color film kept rising. Victor believes that it should be the same with interaction design. Not only should we seek the right ways to design technology that is visible, tangible, and interactable, but also we should explore such ways. What I found most striking was his stress on the whole body in interaction rather than just a fingertip. He said that most of us are sitting and staring at screens all day long, which makes a total separation from our original nature of moving, feeling, and exploring. This idea was very strong to me as it brings technology back to something very human. Reading both articles made me rethink the role of design in either restricting or enlarging our innate capabilities. Victor’s writing is a sign that the technology of the future should make us feel more alive and interconnected, while on the other hand, it should not have the opposite effect of making us feel dead and isolated.

Week 10 – Musical instrument (Group Project with Isabella)

Concept

Mini Piano

Given that we had to make a musical instrument, we were inspired by a project we found in YouTube of what seemed like a piano. From this, we aimed to make a smaller scale of this project following the requirements for the assignment. The circuit consists of one piezo speaker, a potentiometer as an analog sensor, and a three buttons as digital sensors.

Circuit Illustration

Figure 2 ( Circuit design with code and simulation on “Magnificent Jaiks” by Abdelrahman

Final Results

VIDEO

 

What I’m Proud Of

One aspect of this project I’m particularly proud of is the octave multiplier implementation. Instead of having fixed notes, I used the potentiometer to create a continuous pitch control that multiplies the base frequencies by a factor between 0.5x and 2.0x. This simple line of code:

float octaveMultiplier = map(potValue, 0, 1023, 50, 200) / 100.0;

transforms a basic three-note instrument into something much more expressive and fun to play with. You can play the same melody in different registers, which makes the instrument feel more like a real musical tool rather than just a tech demo.

Challenges and Further Improvements

Despite the complexity of the circuit, Abdelrahman successfully managed to produce a design in Magnificent Jaiks which I managed to follow without any issues. After arranging the jumper wires and all the other pieces, the final result was as we aimed for. One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding a way to divide the work as a result of the distance. Nevertheless, we managed to make a plan after meeting on zoom, and finished our circuit on time. For future projects, one thing I would like to improve on is developing an instrument of this kind with more buttons in order to have a larger version of the mini piano done for this assignment.

Week 10 Reading Response

What I found most interesting in this reading was how the author explained that the point of his rant was not to give answers but to make people notice a problem. He wanted readers to realize that the way we design technology often ignores the human body and how it naturally interacts with the world. I liked how he compared the iPad to early black-and-white photography, saying that while it was revolutionary, it was also incomplete. That comparison made sense to me because it showed that something can be both amazing and limited at the same time. The author’s honesty about not having a solution made the whole thing feel more genuine. It felt less like a complaint and more like a challenge for people to think differently.

The part that stayed with me most was when he questioned what kind of future we are choosing if we keep creating tools that bypass the body. He described how we already spend so much of our lives sitting still in front of screens and how that could become permanent if we are not careful. I thought that was a powerful warning, especially when he said that children might become “finger-blind” by using touchscreens instead of exploring the world with their hands. It made me think about how technology can quietly change what it means to grow, learn, and create. By the end, I understood that his real message was about balance. Innovation should not mean leaving behind what makes us human.