Month: April 2026

The author feels that assistive devices enable people with the least possible attention. “The priority for design for disability has traditionally been to enable, while attracting as little attention as possible.” The author’s main argument is to highlight why assistive devices could be fashionable rather than discreet, and mentions eyeglasses as an example that could be applied to other assistive devices. But I disagree; not everyone wants to make their disability visible. Also, I don’t think the use of eyeglasses is the best example, because if it were the case, in my opinion, we would not have contact lenses. Also, people wear sunglasses, which lessens the stigma around medical eyeglasses, not to mention that an estimated 4 billion people worldwide wear glasses, many of which do so due to age, and as we grow older we will wear glasses. I would use the same argument with canes and walkers. We will all eventually age. I also disagree with the use of eyeglasses as a “fashion statement” because they sit right on my face; they should be comfortable and should suit my eye color and facial features due to their necessary placement, and not everyone can replace them with contacts. I think the same for hearing aids as for eyeglasses. But when it comes to prosthetics, I understand making them fashionable because we should make them as fashionable as clothing.

I believe I agree with the author that having options is a good idea, but with these options comes a problem: the cost increases, making people feel more left out than necessary. Imagine two elementary school students with hearing aids, eyeglasses, a wheelchair, etc. One has a colorful, cute, girly pink assistive device and the other has a simple black one. We do have the choice to accessorize, but imagine how it might feel to the student who could not afford to choose. Honestly, not everything needs to be designed to look great, fashionable, and trendy. This is where social media comes into play. In the TV era, mainly the early 2000s, people did what was affordable, convenient, and suitable for them when it came to clothing, children’s toys, etc. Social media is now constantly pushing ads, making people feel they are not enough. So my question is: should we stick to simplicity if it brings us happiness, regardless of what it is?

Reading through Graham Pullin, he makes some interesting arguments of how our world can actually enhance and create identity even in our disabilities we have. I think the best case made is with our glasses. It’s something I see a lot in many of my family members who require glasses to see better. Some don’t really say anything about them, while others ask around if or how the glasses they’re wearing makes them look like. But if I’m honest, I think glasses actually can very much enhance the stylistic choices of a person’s clothes. You could have say glasses that match your outfit, or highlight your personality. Even though I personally have never really judged (I mean why would you yk) for wearing glasses, I really like when I see some people just kinda go all out and choose a pair that makes them stand out, instead of hiding them like the medical world would like.

Another interesting thing is the hearing aids. Recently my grandfather actually started wearing them as he had trouble hearing and honestly I’ve not noticed them at all. I believe the main fact is that they’re flush in his ears and they’re a bodily sort of skin color to blend in with his ears. And if I’m honest, even reading the points the books makes are partially outdated as the book itself was published in 2009. Now we live in a world where everyone wears earbuds or some sort of earphones, most likely wireless as well. It mostly helps us with our listening needs of music, or podcasts and you could see them everywhere. And since we’ve normalized their use, now even some have features that can act just like hearing aids. Again, this helps a lot in making earbuds acceptable for everyone to wear. In short, now that everyone is wearing a “hearing aid” we can definitely build on making our world much more connected.

Both products at one point were stigmatized. Now they’re normalized. This practice is exactly how we can achieve a better world. Not just by reinventing meaning, but creating a design choice. Narrative does a lot in influencing public perception of a given stigma or bias. And honestly, kudos to all that are designing a more acceptable world for all to take part in, this is what we need more of. Small achievements like this, really can amount to big changes.

Concept

My concept is heavily inspired by the show Squid Game and I wanted to make a musical instrument (well I guess in this, more of a music box/player?) where the light controls the mood of the music, so I used one of the songs from a game in the show.  I used a photoresistor/LDR where the darker it is, the slower the tempo is to create that “creepy vibe,” and the brighter it is, the normal tempo is played. I also used a red LED when the creepy version is played  and a green LED when the normal one is played, these lights’ colors are actually used in the show in another one of the games.

Full Code | Video Demo | Schematics

Code that I’m proud of

ldrValue = analogRead(LDR_PIN);
isDark   = (ldrValue < DARK_THRESHOLD);
tempoMult = isDark ? CREEPY_TEMPO : NORMAL_TEMPO;

int duration = (int)((1000.0 / durations[note]) * tempoMult);

tone(BUZZER_PIN, melody[note], duration);

I’m proud of this because I had to figure out how to make the LDR play a role in the song without just making turn on and off. First thing I had to consider was that the LDR doesn’t hand me “LOW” or “HIGH” and just gives me a raw number between 0 and 1023, and I had to find my own threshold by covering the sensor with my hand and watching the Serial Monitor until I landed on 420. For the actual song, I decided to use a tempo multiplier because I didn’t want the notes themselves to change (just the feel of them), I multiplied the duration by 2.5 in the dark to make every note hang longer and the whole melody sounds heavier and more unsettling without needing to change the notes.

How this was made

I started with the slide switch wired to pin 2 using INPUT_PULLUP, which meant I didn’t need an external resistor. When the switch is open, the buzzer stops and both LEDs go off straight away. For the LDR I had to build a voltage divider using a 10kΩ resistor because the Arduino can only read voltage and not resistance directly. One leg of the LDR goes to 5V, the other connects to A0 and one leg of the 10kΩ resistor, and the other resistor leg goes to GND. In bright light the LDR resistance drops and A0 reads high, and in darkness the resistance rises and A0 reads low. I landed on 420 as my threshold after some testing with the Serial Monitor (that I temporary added but later removed). The buzzer plays the melody using tone() and I used a code from Github for that melody (referenced below), and the duration of each note gets multiplied by 2.5 in dark conditions to make it creepy. The green LED lights up in bright conditions and the red LED lights up when it goes dark. I also made sure to re-check the LDR and switch inside the melody loop on every single note so the instrument reacts to light changes mid-song rather than waiting for the whole melody to finish before checking again.

Reflection & Future Improvements

Honestly this assignment gave me more trouble than I expected, but in a good way. I went in thinking the LDR would be straightforward as it’s something that I’ve learned from the analog sensor lesson and it kind of was at the hardware level, but making it do something musically interesting took some more thought. The Squid Game inspiration kept me motivated too because I had a clear vision of what I wanted it to feel like, which made the troubleshooting feel worth it rather than frustrating. If I kept going I’d want to include more songs from the different games and have more “modes.” I’d also want to try changing the actual pitch in the dark, dropping notes lower to make it sound even more sinister, which feels very on brand for the Squid Game theme. But for what it is, I’m genuinely happy with how the concept came through.

References

https://docs.arduino.cc/language-reference/en/functions/advanced-io/tone/

https://docs.arduino.cc/built-in-examples/digital/toneMelody/?_gl=1*yqplbf*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTM3MDIzMDA5Ni4xNzc2ODY2MzM5*_ga_NEXN8H46L5*czE3NzY4NjYzMzckbzEkZzAkdDE3NzY4NjYzMzckajYwJGwwJGgxNjY2NjUxMjk0

For the melody: https://github.com/hibit-dev/buzzer/blob/master/src/movies/squid_game/squid_game.ino

For the final project, I want to make room ambience controller. I have a rgb light ribbon which runs around my study table. it lights are controlled by a a remote. There are different colors, blinking modes and brightness controls. I will communicate to that using a infrared LED. Firstly Ill map those controls to P5. Then I will define different setting for different ambiences. The user will be able to choose from them. I will also add music to it, I am still thinking of where to get the sound output from. Next I will have songs mode which will make the lights’ blinking corresponding to the song’s tempo, amplitude etc. This is core concept of my project

I want to add a gesture to pause everything. I plan to use the distance sensor for it. I also want to incorporate the LCD but I am not sure if that will go with it because the whole experience is light dependent.

This article was really interesting when talking about about physical implements and how they affect user. This goes back to the recurring theme of designing interactive system where the user should be the center of the design and user feedback. The idea of pictures under glass in my opinion creates a pseudo-realistic feeling where everything is meant to imitate the actual objects not not give the user the actual feeling and new design principles are becoming more and more virtual which makes I question how much humans will be involved with tools or implements in the coming period and we may actually lose touch with what we deem as reality now. The reading itself was very self-explanatory so I do not have much to say but it was just a simple reminder to keep in touch with physical things when designing interactive systems.

I resonate with the argument made by the author, as in my opinion, the notion of touchscreens being the “ending point” of a technological revolution seems a little odd to me. I believe that there is much more to the technological development of the future than an object that resembles a phone.
What I found most interesting was the part about hands. The author makes a great point about how useful our touch senses are. Human evolution can be strongly tied to the senses that are on the tip of our fingers. Touch is an extremely powerful “tool”, if we could call it that, and we’ve basically designed it out of our tools entirely.

This reading reminded me of our time in class, when the professor showed us simple motion detectors and control using p5js. This technology is not touch-related directly, but still presents a more futuristic/alternative concept rather than touchscreens. This transitions into my thought that interactions that involve your whole hand, your movement, your body, basically, other additional parts of our body (also including touch), are much more interesting and feel more “alive”, compared to just sliding your finger across a surface.

To conclude, I think that it’s easier to make the argument than to solve the problem. It’s one thing to say “we should use our hands more” and another to design something that’s actually as convenient and as accessible as a smartphone. He kind of admits this in the responses page , he doesn’t have the answer, just the problem. Which is fair, but also frustrating at the same time.