Category: F2024 – Aya

Concept

For this assignment I used two different LED lights one is switched on my a push button, and the other changes it’s brightness based on the lighting detected by the light sensor.

Code

int led = 11;

void setup(){
  Serial.begin(9600);
  pinMode(led,OUTPUT);
}

void loop(){
  int sensorValue = analogRead(A2);
  Serial.println(sensorValue);
  analogWrite(led,sensorValue/4);
  delay(50);
}

Github

Setup

The setup was drawn using Tinkercad

Schematic

The schematic was drawn using Tinkercad

Demonstration

Video

 

The two readings, “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” and “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses),” both explore principles of interactive design but from slightly different angles.

In the first reading, the author emphasizes the importance of giving participants agency in interactive art. Rather than dictating the experience, the artist sets up an environment and then allows the audience to interpret, explore, and interact with it on their own terms. Creating a “conversation” between the artwork and the participant, the creator must observe and learn from these interactions, potentially adjusting the work based on this “feedback.”

The second reading explores common themes and projects in physical computing, like theremins, gloves, floor pads, and video mirrors, all of which require some form of user input to trigger responses. The recurring theme here is that these projects are designed to engage people through touch, movement, or other physical interactions, often allowing users to shape the output in real time. This reading emphasizes the joy of creation and discovery that can emerge when designers revisit popular concepts and bring new variations to them, emphasizing that even “overdone” projects can have originality.

Both reaidngs highlight how interactive art and physical computing are inherently participatory. They rely on the user to create meaning and engage with the work actively. The first reading emphasizes letting go of control over the audience’s experience, while the second celebrates the creativity in giving people intuitive ways to interact with technology. I think these ideas encourage designers to focus less on forcing an experience and more on creating frameworks where users feel empowered to explore, which aligns well with user-centered design principles.

When I read Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses), I was struck by the balance it finds between tradition and innovation. As someone interested in interactive art, I often struggle with the feeling that certain concepts have been “done to death,” especially in areas like musical interaction or video mirrors. Yet, this reading challenges the idea that originality is a prerequisite for value. It made me realize that even revisited ideas can be unique, with room for personal touches and new approaches. When I reflect on my own creative process, I realize I’ve often dismissed ideas early-on because they felt unoriginal. This piece has shifted my perspective, encouraging me to see repeating themes as opportunities to explore, rather than limitations on creativity. The drum glove and theremin examples showed me how familiar frameworks can offer endless variation, with each design shaped by subtle gestures and intent. This makes me question: how can I bring my own voice to recurring ideas, perhaps through unexpected input methods or reimagining context?

Reading Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen made me rethink people’s approaches to interactive art, especially around how much control artists should exert over the audience’s experience. It suggests that by interpreting or guiding responses too directly, they might be limiting the unique, personal interactions that make interactive art powerful. Instead of letting the work speak for itself, artists might be imposing an idea that restricts the audience’s freedom to find their own meaning. The idea of “setting the stage” but leaving the experience open-ended raises questions about artists’ role as the creator. Can they trust the audience to interpret without their input? How do they balance giving enough context with allowing space for exploration? This reading reframes interactive art as a conversation, where the audience has the final word, and I think it challenges people to think about designing more for discovery than direction.

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

I found this blog post insightful. At first, it made me feel very confused and upset, because the approach I was taking with the assignments that we’ve completed before is like with artworks, where I set the meaning and actions and people follow it. But, it actually makes such more sense when we say that it is not one sided interaction, we listen to how users speak with their actions and do they find their way by themselves. It was so surprising to me that the author related planning interactive artwork to the director working with actors, because this semester I’m taking a DIRECTING class too! After the paragraph about directing, the idea of the author became really clear to me and I actually got it. I resonated with his words of leaving half part of your work to the audience to figure out what they are feeling about it and what meaning they would find in it, because that’s what makes it an artwork. My professor in the Directing class used to tell us: “Love your audience”. Now, it could really apply to my interactive works, where the users would come first and the intentions and messages that I planned would go second. 

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

In one of the first ideas of the author about not necessarily seeking originality, I agree with him, because I think that replication is key for learning and mastering skills. In art schools they teach artists to replicate the biggest art masterpieces, so afterwards there would be a room for original artworks creation.  

It’s my first encounter with the theremin instrument. And I like how Tom Igoe put the idea of interaction with instruments that when you are using them you essentially think about music and the process of using it. That leads us to the point that interaction should be simple, understandable and meaningful. 

When discussing dolls and pets, I remembered the viral dancing cactus toy, which replicates the sound and adds movements. The author mentions that “we like things that appear behave like us”, but the case with the cactus toy is definitely an exception, because in TikTok there is a growing trend of videos where these toys make babies cry after they hear a toy replicating their sound and movement. 

Moreover, even though dance is one of the most enjoyable physical expression forms, I don’t think the usage of it in physical computing expanded beyond the Step Maniax arcade, where you just have to step on right rectangles (or maybe I just didn’t see any other examples). 

When discussing the whole body as a cursor idea, I thought about using it for manipulating the computer screen. Also, in this case the concept of inclusivity really steps in, because different people have different abilities.  

The idea of flying seems very exciting in terms of interactions. 

For this assignment I created a simple LED Control with an Analog Sensor and On/Off Switch. Arduino controls the two LEDs independently. One LED’s brightness changes, The second LED is controlled by an on/off switch. I was inspired by the light switches we have at home, that work with on/off switch but also can be dimmed (for this assignment’s sake I had to use 2 LEDs). But it was cool to create a somewhat similar version of that and understand how it works.

I originally used the ultra sonic sensor, since I wanted to experiment with something we haven’t used in class, but it didn’t work, I couldn’t figure out if the issue came from the code or the arduino. So I restarted and decided to take a step back and create something I was more familiar with.

GitHub

My Arduino

This is my attempt of drawing the schematic

In Emotion & Design, i feel like Norman focuses on how beautiful design enhances usability by creating positive emotions, which make users more flexible and forgiving. I agree with him because, who can argue that a product like the iPhone, with its stunning and iconic design, makes us ignore minor flaws just because it’s so visually appealing? I’m definitely more inclined to overlook its glitches simply because it looks so good.

Norman’s observation regarding the distinction between the design requirements for calm and high-stress settings is also something i agree on. For example, In emergencies, functionality must take precedence over aesthetics; fire exits should be clear and direct, regardless of their visual appeal. However, in a coffee shop,  good design is everything. For instance, Starbucks. The warm, inviting ambiance practically begs people to stick around, engage in conversation, or get some work done. The environment is not just a random occurrence; it’s a purposeful decision to merge practicality with an inviting look, encouraging people to stay.

However, I completely stand by Norman’s critique of designs that prioritize style over substance. I have direct experience with this, which involved a “smart” lamp. Sure, it had a fantastic appearance, but honestly, controlling it was nearly out of the question. Why bother making something aesthetically pleasing if it’s not functional? Function should always take over over mere aesthetics in design. Consequently, well-made products leave a lasting impact, while purely decorative ones quickly lose their appeal.

The story of Margaret Hamilton changed the way I think about design and leadership. She did more than her job; she made sure the program was safe, even though some people didn’t understand why it was important. I really admire that kind of dedication to quality, even when it’s not what everyone wants. It makes me think about how important it is to pay attention to the little things and set high standards, even if other people don’t always get it.

People often think that tech is a “man’s world,” but her story shows that this is not true. It’s inspiring to think that one of the first software engineers was a mother who worked full-time and took care of her family. It shows that diversity isn’t just nice to have; it’s important. In group projects and in real life, I’ve seen how hearing different points of view can lead to better ideas. Hamilton’s story makes me want to support diversity in every area I work in.

Concept & Inspiration.

For this small project, I was thinking of making something feasible to construct yet useful for me. As I was almost lying on the chair after barely 5 minutes in the IM Lab, it didn’t take me long to come up with an idea of a switch that would regulate posture and indicate how well the person is seated (a so-called “posture fixer”) by using the LED lights, a regular paper tape, and conductive fabric.

Highlights.

I set two variables (“yellowState” and “greenState”) in my code to regulate the LED switches by using the “if” condition functions.

My main goal was to make the LED lights react accordingly to a certain number of “buttons” pressed. For instance, when no button is pressed, the red LED is blinking as a sign of warning. When only one of the buttons is pressed (either green or yellow), the yellow sign is switched on, meaning that the posture is satisfactory yet not perfect. In case if both buttons are pressed, green LED is switched on, indicating decent posture.

if (yellowState == HIGH && greenState == HIGH) { // When both buttons pressed
digitalWrite(4, HIGH); // Turn on green LED
digitalWrite(2, LOW); // Turn off yellow LED
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW); // Turn off red LED

} else if (yellowState == HIGH || greenState == HIGH) { // When only one button pressed
digitalWrite(4, LOW); // Turn off green LED
digitalWrite(2, HIGH); // Turn on yellow LED
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW); // Turn off red LED

} else { // When no button is pressed
digitalWrite(4, LOW); // Turn off green LED
digitalWrite(2, LOW); // Turn off yellow LED
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH); // Blinking red LED (for 1 second)
delay(1000);
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW); 
delay(1000); 
}
}

Embedded Sketch.

GitHub

 

Norman,“Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better”

Don Norman, famous for outlining principles of user-friendly design, argues that aesthetics play an important role in the functionality of designs, impacting directly not only usability of the product but also user’s emotional response. An attractive object evokes positive emotions simply when looking at it, which further motivates the user to explore and engage. This is explained through the concept of emotional design, which highlights not only the decorative but also functional role of aesthetic in design.

I agree that it is important to think about the way your work looks like from the point of aesthetics – in both physical and digital works, “pretty” things catch user’s attention, which is then carefully navigated to functionality. Going back to the famous manifesto “form follows function”, in the context of Norman’s ideas I agree with it – attractive things do tend to work better, especially when the aesthetic and functionality of the product are intertwined.

Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

Margaret Hamilton is an incredibly important figure in computer science, and I am glad that I have learned about her work back in middle school. She is a motivating example of a person who has managed to combine her work and home duties back when the opportunities for women to enter technical fields were extremely limited.

Hamilton’s approach to error management is intriguing to me, since she highlighted the importance of simulating all experiences before bringing them to life. Planning potential errors in advance is crucial when it comes to such big inventions as Apollo. The example of tracking an accidental error and then resolving it under pressure says a lot about the importance of paying attention to all details and planning everything that can go wrong in advance.

In my projects, I wish to learn to pay more attention to such minor things that can potentially go faulty, especially since we have started working with physical electronic models – the risks are higher here compared to purely digital simulations.