Category: F2023 – Aya

The reading “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” delves into the most popular physical computing projects over time. As I was going through the different project creations, I realized that the technology used in several of these would be very useful for people with disabilities. It would allow them to communicate and interact with others more easily, along with performing different activities without the need for any additional assistance. Certain projects that come to mind for this include the body-as-cursor and hand-as-cursor. Someone who is a paraplegic or quadriplegic would be able to express themselves more easily with these projects. Off the top of my head, I instantly thought of Stephen Hawking and how he has used a similar technology to communicate and express himself without moving any part of his body. The only thing I would like to add is that I wish we would’ve also gotten the point of view of someone who is not familiar with physical computing projects to get their take on what they think is the most popular or most beneficial of these projects. That being said, I appreciate how the reading informs users that just because a project has already been done by someone that does not mean that you can’t make it your own with just a few changes.

The reading “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” delves into the creation of interactive and interpretive art and informs the readers how the artist’s job is only to create and that they should leave it to the audience to interpret it however they like. This reading has made me realize how many artworks I’ve seen at shows and museums with interpretations provided as well. Though I didn’t think much about it at the time, I now wish I had been able to interpret it on my own as that would’ve made those artworks more personal to me and my experience. That being said, the artwork belongs to the artist and they have every right to do with it as they please. I believe if an artist wishes to provide an interpretation with their artwork, they have every right to do so, and the audience can’t be mad about it. I would also add that in the digital world of today, anyone can easily Google the interpretation of any artwork they don’t understand, so it would be much simpler to just provide the interpretation with the artwork in the first place. This would save the iPad generation a lot of time Googling the answer.

These readings both delve into the end-user experience with different projects. The first reading explains how people interpret different physical computing projects and the second reading explains how people interpret different interactive artwork. Both the readings also emphasize how no matter what each project or artwork was made for, everyone can use or interpret them according to their own needs and abilities.

Concept:

In this week’s assignment, I have utilized the analog output features. From all the knowledge that I have gained from the classes, I have decided to create a prototype that shows drivers how far they are from the crossroad walking area in front of the signals. I decided to pursue this assignment because I noticed that there are a lot of people who get way too close to the crossroad walking which will interfere with the individual’s path and can be dangerous in some instances. The way the prototype warns the drivers is by portraying an LED output under the signal for each lane, if the driver is at a good distance, it shows green and the closer they the color fades into yellow, and finally into the red region where if the driver gets too close to the crossroad, it will illuminate a bright red LED showing that they shouldn’t go anywhere after that point. If the driver goes into the red region, there’s an option for the pedestrians to click a button on the pole to warn the driver to back off by illuminating the red light.

Prototype:

I used the ultrasonic sensor to detect the distance, and a common cathode LED to create green, red, and yellow colors in one LED. For the pedestrian warning button, I used a push button that connects the circuit to an external LED which will switch on with each push of a button.

Code:

const int trigPin = 9;
const int echoPin = 10;
const int bluePin = 6;
const int greenPin = 5;
const int redPin = 3;

// Declare variables for LED colors
int redValue = 0;
int greenValue = 0;
int blueValue = 0;

void setup() {
//initiate pins as inputs and outputs depending on its application
  Serial.begin(9600);
  pinMode(trigPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(echoPin, INPUT);
  pinMode(redPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(greenPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(bluePin, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
//sends a short pulse of ultrasonic sensor and waits a bit then receives it
  digitalWrite(trigPin, LOW);
  delayMicroseconds(2);
  digitalWrite(trigPin, HIGH);
  delayMicroseconds(10);
  digitalWrite(trigPin, LOW);

//Time it takes for the pulse to travel back from the object
  long duration = pulseIn(echoPin, HIGH);
//Universal conversion of time into distance in cm
  int distance = duration * 0.034 / 2;
  int brightness = 0;

//If conditions to produce light at specific distances
 if (distance < 10) {
  brightness = map(distance, 3, 10, 255, 0);
  //RED COLOR
  analogWrite(redPin, brightness);
  analogWrite(greenPin, 0);
  analogWrite(bluePin, 0);

} else if (distance >= 10 && distance < 20) {
  brightness = map(distance, 10, 20, 0, 255);
  //YELLOW COLOR
  analogWrite(redPin, brightness);
  analogWrite(greenPin, brightness);
  analogWrite(bluePin, 0);

} else if (distance >= 20 && distance <= 50) {
  brightness = map(distance, 20, 50, 0, 255);
  //GREEN COLOR
  analogWrite(redPin, 0);
  analogWrite(greenPin, brightness);
  analogWrite(bluePin, 0);

} else {
  // Default color
  setColor(0, 0, 0);  
}

//output codes to know what distance I am at as well as the proportionate RGB color
  Serial.print("Distance: ");
  Serial.print(distance);
  Serial.print(" cm | RGB Color: ");
  Serial.print("R: ");
  Serial.print(redValue);
  Serial.print(" G: ");
  Serial.print(greenValue);
  Serial.print(" B: ");
  Serial.println(blueValue);

  delay(20);
}

Reflection:

Overall, I learned a lot about the use of analog inputs/outputs and how digital pins differentiate from analog ones. Some of the difficulties I have faced were probably more on the code than the setup. Such as the mapping of the distance of the ultrasonic sensor to the LED’s increasing/decreasing brightness. Another issue was the conversion of time into distance, after looking through Google, I found a universal conversion from the time measured in pulse to the distance in centimeters.

 

“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”

In the reading, “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, the author discusses the importance of allowing users to fully take charge of interactive artworks. The main points brought up were the following: 

• Interactive artwork doesn’t need to have a clear statement. (Leave room for interpretation) 
• Interactive artwork is meant to open a conversation not DIRECT the conversation. 
• The audience should ideally complete the artwork by offering their emotional reactions, physical actions, and thoughts to the piece.

I think the PERFECT analogy that the author used was when they compared a director telling an actor on set how to feel or what to do when acting, to artists adding too much of their input into their interactive pieces.

I thought that that analogy wonderfully tied together what the author was trying to explain throughout the piece. I believe that artists have such a critical role in creating spaces that allow for important discussion and have the great responsibility of making sure these discussions are OPEN without being manipulated.

“Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)”

For the reading, “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)”, the author goes over a wide range of different interactive artworks. For me this reading almost acted as a means for me to brainstorm some possibilities for projects in the future and gave me a sense of some of the things that are possible with physical computing. 

My favorite example was the piece called “Fields of Grass”. I really liked the idea of the user being able to use semi physical touch to activate music or light using sensors. I always enjoyed these types of interactive artworks when seeing them in person! 

 

This week’s reading from Tigoe was all about Physical Computing and interactive media art, and it was super enlightening. One part that really caught my attention was the reading on Making Interactive Art. It talked about three key things to keep in mind when creating interactive artwork: setting the stage, shutting up, and listening.

The idea that your artwork should speak for itself really stuck with me. Many times, we create art and start questioning ourselves – is it good enough? How do I explain my thoughts behind it? This reading basically said, you don’t have to explain anything. Your artwork can stand on its own.

This got me thinking about the interactive showcase we saw at the beginning of the semester. We were given the freedom to explore, touch, sit, stand, and feel. It was about being alone together. The artist didn’t have to explain anything; the experience spoke for itself. It made me aspire to create art that lets people think what they want.

Connecting this to another reading, Physical Computing hits and misses, I realized that the sense of freedom in interactive art extends to the technical side too. Even if something similar has been done before, you have the liberty to make changes and adjustments. Set the stage, make it your own, and then, shut up and listen. This means letting your work be interpreted by others who might have seen something similar but are experiencing a different variation through your lens.

These readings teach us crucial lessons for dealing with interactive art. Don’t let external opinions affect your work. Do what you need to do and let the art speak for itself. It’s about giving your audience the freedom to perceive and connect with your work on their terms.

“Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits(and Misses)” Reading:

To be able to mimic and replicate nature and our overall surroundings within the digital medium is a great feat that is achieved through Digital Computing. This means that we can react with these elements that will stimulate our senses and produce a certain feeling/reaction within us all from the comfort of our homes. As time passes, Physical Computing gets better after each iteration and ultimately builds upon one another to come up with a much better prototype that can effectively stimulate our senses and give us the feeling of joy or pleasure. In the article,“ Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits(and Misses)”, the author discusses various projects that are created through Physical Computing which has a much deeper, more real stimulation produced from the outcome.

A common example of an outcome of Physical Computing that the author discusses repeatedly is how music is produced. Most of them incorporate various elements, like hand movements to simulate different sounds, floor pads that produce different sounds, etc. This then gives us humans the power to create music and aesthetically pleasing pictures and portraits merely through simple code and common devices that incorporate sensors. One thing I noticed within these projects is the notion of “randomness”. No matter what the outcome of that specific project is, it always is created through human senses and human movements, and these movements are, more often than not, random. Ultimately, randomness plays a crucial role in producing music and art pieces that are not always thought of or aligned but still don’t fail to make us amazed, pleased emotionally, and maybe even relieved in some cases.

There’s a specific line within the text that caught my attention, “The most common mistake made by designers of this type of project is to confuse presence with attention. Presence is easy to sense, as described above. It’s harder to tell whether someone’s paying attention, though.” It’s important to keep in mind that no matter how hard these projects incorporate various sensors to stimulate our emotions and overall senses if the individual is not trying to emotionally connect with the piece, then it would come out as random rather than having a meaning. I discussed how randomness in pieces can have its beauty, but that beauty will only be able to be seen and heard if the individual is actually attempting to engage with the pieces instead of just playing around with them. instead of just randomly clicking every button on a canvas to produce sound, you can for instance think of creative ways to create pleasing music by clicking specific buttons in a sequence- that;s is what engaging means. In the instance of physical computing, human interaction is important, but human engagement and the notion of “attention” are also vital to reaching the ultimate goal of stimulating the senses.

“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” Reading:

In Tigoe’s article “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, Tigoe discusses the difference between conventional artwork and contemporary artwork such as interactive artwork. In artworks like Mona Lisa for instance, individuals have an impression of the artwork and look at some elements within it like the color, opacity, story, etc. These elements are all static- as in they never change over time or at least their interpretation doesn’t have a vast difference. Whereas, in interactive artworks, individuals are fully immersed in the art piece and each can have their own whole different interpretation and emotional attachment to it. Interactive artworks can work negatively or very positively in spreading their message to individuals depending on their emotional level and relevancy to their experiences.

Tigoe shed light on the important aspect of having a conversation with the artwork, if users were given the entire script and what to do or what to think, then that interactive art piece would be more of a conventional art piece instead of one in which novel emotions and ideas are produced. In other words. We have physical computing that presents those art pieces, and then we have the element of “attention” that was mentioned in the previous text- which is the engagement of individuals with the art piece. While one may want to spread an important message to the community through their interactive artwork, doing so while giving very clear instructions on how to think and what to think will only ruin the entire experience and the entire element of interactivity. There’s a famous quote out there, “To each their own”, as in each person will have their unique interpretation even if it doesn’t reach the ultimate conclusion you want them to, and there’s nothing wrong with it since it is also an interpretation of the many interpretations of an art piece.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

This article really struck a chord with me The title alone “Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen,” immediately caught my attention. Even before reading the rest of the article. It got me thinking about interactive art as an ongoing conversation rather than a scripted statement. I completely agree that we should set the stage, provide some hints, and then let the audience take the lead. It’s like directing a play where the audience becomes part of the performance. I’ve always believed that art is a shared experience, and this article reinforced that. Letting the audience guide the narrative and listening to their reactions. Interactive art isn’t a finished product; it’s a collaborative, evolving performance. This perspective inspires me to create art that’s not just seen but experienced and shaped by those who engage with it.

As for Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

I would say The Multitouch Interfaces project was my favorite because of the cool variety in sensing touch points, whether through infrared light, distance sensors, or capacitive touch. The challenges, like maintaining sensors and the lack of tactile feedback, felt real and relatable. It wasn’t just about tech; it was about blending human touch with digital finesse. Addie Wagenknecht and Stefan Hechenberger’s CUBIT using infrared light and cameras showcased this fusion perfectly, making Multitouch Interfaces my top pick.

 

Magic Mouse

Concept:

For my “Magic Mouse” assignment, the aim is to create a capacitive touch sensing system using my Arduino board. The core idea revolves around a touch-sensitive surface, represented by a simple foil, that triggers an LED to illuminate each time the surface is touched by the mouse.

How It Works:
The foil functions as a capacitive touch sensor. When I touch the foil with the mouse, it induces a change in capacitance, which the Arduino detects through the connected digital pin. The Arduino then activates the LED.

Completed project:

IMG_0974

Areas for Improvement:

Looking at the project, I feel like I could’ve dialed up the complexity a bit. It’s good as it is, but adding some extra layers could take it to the next level. Maybe weave in more interactive elements or toss in some sensors. Just a touch more sophistication to keep things interesting and elevate the challenge.

This might have been the first time I hear this opinion out loud, I always tried to create interactive art works independent and sufficient for the user to be immersed without any prior information or explanation. I totally agree on the idea that an artist need not explain their pov or their vision of the project as a primary part of the experience. “The thing you build, whether it’s a device or a whole environment, is just the beginning of a conversation with the people who experience your work.” Is a statement that caught my attention. In previous classes we discussed the definition of interaction and a definition that we came up with is “the exchanged interaction between two mediums” which is facilitated in conversations for example, hence it is well said that the interaction between the user and the project is like a conversation that one might say between the artist vision portrayed by the project and the user.

I agree with the second reading on “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits and Misses.” The idea that the next big thing hasn’t come around yet is because people tend to give up on ideas they think have already been done and can’t be improved. The examples in the reading show that you can take something existing, use your creativity and imagination, and turn it into something new. It’s like how we use materials around us to create things – in the same way, we can use existing inventions as a starting point to build upon. The reading emphasizes the importance of not dismissing ideas too quickly and instead seeing them as opportunities to add something unique. By adopting this mindset, we can uncover new possibilities within familiar concepts, contributing to technological advancements and innovative solutions.

 

Arduino Ultrasonic Sensor :

For my assignment  i attempted to use the ultrasonic sensor in my arduino kit accompanied by three 330 ohm resistors, eight jumper wires and three LED’s yellow, green, and red. Each color corresponds/lights up to how far my hand is away from the ultrasonic sensor, yellow being ‘close’ , green being ‘too close’ , and red being ‘the maximum’ distance.

 

For improvements:

I would like to add a buzzer that initiates a buzzing sound according to how close an object is to the ultrasonic sensor.

 

For my assignment idea, I really wanted to incorporate makeup because it’s something that I really love and use everyday (especially red lipstick). I know that I am technically using my hands, but I really didn’t want to let go of this idea!

I connected my Arduino to the breadboard, making use of the techniques we used in class and then taped my jumper wires onto my lipstick (not very subtly, if I may add) and used foil  as my “conductor fabric” to get the LED to switch on and off.

 

For next time, I would like to create some sort of holder for the lipstick so I don’t have to physically apply it and also find a way to hide the wires since they are so obvious.