For this week’s assignment, I wanted to create something that utilized my handy octo-buddy, especially when it came to detecting its emotions. I decided to use two lights: one red and one green. When the octopus was flipped to happy and placed on the sensor, the green light would light up. When it was angry, the red light would light up. To do this, I utilized copper tape and aluminum foil, flattened into a coin like shape. I took the copper tape and attached the wires for the switches in the tape that I then attached to the legs of the octopus – one on each side for each emotion. I also inserted a wire in the aluminum foil.

The result can be seen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nE8djbPHpdQABXpe-pDiYClpSpO_8Dnd/view?usp=drive_link

All in all, it was a bit hard to get the octopus’ legs to align with the sensor when filming the video, but in the end, it wasn’t too hard of an assignment to complete. I do wish we had more discreet and longer wires, so the octopus didn’t have to be so close to the Arduino board.

Reading 1

Norman’s idea that “attractive things work better” really resonated with me, especially as someone who loves design. I’ve always felt drawn to beautifully designed objects, but I hadn’t fully realized how much their aesthetics affect the way I use them. Norman’s explanation made me reflect on how, when something looks good, I’m more patient with it, more curious, and even more forgiving when it doesn’t work perfectly. It’s like beauty creates a kind of emotional buffer that makes me feel more connected to the object. That connection isn’t just superficial—it actually helps me think more clearly and solve problems better, just like he describes. It reminded me why I care so much about thoughtful design: it’s not just about how something looks, but how it makes people feel, and ultimately, how well it works because of that feeling.

Reading 2

Reading Margaret Hamilton’s story made me reflect on how often history overlooks the people who work behind the scenes, especially women. Hamilton’s brilliance lay not just in her technical knowledge but in the way she foresaw failures and built resilience into the software itself. It is amazing to think that her code saved the Apollo 11 mission at a time of crisis, yet for a long time, she was not a household name. What impressed me most was how she fought to get software recognized as real engineering: it reminded me of how many fields that we now take seriously had to be legitimized by people who were initially dismissed. I find her story inspiring because it combines human intuition, systems thinking, and a deep belief in the importance of “invisible” work. It makes me think of how many other anonymous innovators shaped the world we live in today.

 

The key aspects I noticed in Norman’s Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better were the negative and positive valences, where affects have great implications towards how humans interact with and therefore achieve productivity in the use of everyday things (or better described as any tool).  I want to expand this concept and interpret this very affect and behavior to not only items such as teapots or any tool alike, but for the lived environment. I tend to agree with this framework, to the extent that I am fully confident that you will produce different work and express different levels of creativity through a lived metaphysical conversation in realtime. To highlight this with an example, I prefer sitting in a natural setting (garden, desert, beach) with no seating or furniture when I try to solve an issue or I want to focus on my creative aspects. After all, nature inspired half of the things we know today.

After Reading McMillan’s Her Code Got Humans on The Moon – And Invented Software itself I connected the storyline and experience of Margaret to that of Ada Lovelace. After all, they are both pioneers in their own respect. Lovelace developed the first known and documented computer program and directly worked with and gave more influence to Charles Babbage. Margaret reflects this pioneering and ingenious creativity by working on highly-technical work on software engineering through punch-cards and simulation. During the 1960s, this development process required a great deal of manual human intervention. I am inspired by her motives and ambition, and I wonder how many people she inspires today. Margaret’s work and achievements resonate within me today, and I believe she deserves even more credit, just like how Lovelace has a GPU architecture named after her.

“The hidden danger is to neglect areas not so easily addressed in science and engineering.” This outlines the principles in which Norman laid out that designers must  consider more htna functionality. The things we use should look good too. One important thing to consider is that we as humans are naturally drawn to what is beautiful.  When we consider that we must design around the human mind as Norman says, it is important that we consider aesthetics to a great extent as well as functionality. Furthermore, the aesthetics of the product should in some way fit the function of the device.

In terms of what she did for software: I think that this story shows us that code has to work more than just once. In a system such as a spacecraft, it becomes important to realize that these systems should be designed to be consistent. Another thing she made apparent was the importance of contingencies. Because of how when her daughter broke an important device, she learned to plan around it, it made it apparent that we must plan around unpredictable events and make sure that softwares will work even then,

Concept

This circuit demonstrates a simple, hands-free switch mechanism built using copper tape and Arduino Uno. The switch is activated by proximity without requiring mechanical pressure, enabling interaction with a system without physically pressing a button. The copper tape acts as a capacitive touch sensor,  using a Newton’s Cradle as part of the physical interface.

Video

Materials

• Arduino Uno
• Breadboard
• Copper Tape
• Jumper Wires
• Newton’s Cradle (for physical interaction mechanism)
• LED
• Resistors (330Ω)
• USB Cable

Setup

The circuit is composed of a basic LED switching system. Instead of using a traditional push button, the switch is implemented with two strips of copper tape placed strategically on the Newton’s Cradle to detect contact.

• One wire connects the copper tape to a digital input pin on the Arduino.
• The other strip connects to ground (GND).
• When a person touches or closes the circuit by interacting with the Newton’s Cradle, the circuit registers a state change.

Based on this input, the LED turns on or off, simulating a touch-activated switch.

 

I am happy with the result; Newton’s Cradle never fails to make something engaging.

For the Unusual switch I decided to continue the concepts I was exploring within the first seven weeks of interactive and generative art using p5.js. I call this switch the “Handcuff” switch. A general rule of thumb tells you “gif > any other file format” so here is my demonstration whilst also trying to re-enact how the person wearing the handcuffs would feel

 

 

const int switchPin = 2;
const int ledPin = 13;
bool handcuffsLocked = false; // tracks if handcuffs are on or off

void setup() {
  pinMode(switchPin, INPUT_PULLUP);  // Internal pull-up resistor
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
  Serial.begin(9600);
}

void loop() {
  int switchState = digitalRead(switchPin);

  if (switchState == LOW && !handcuffsLocked) {
    handcuffsLocked = true; // lock the handcuffs
    digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
    Serial.println("Handcuffs ON");
  }

  if (switchState == HIGH && handcuffsLocked) {
    handcuffsLocked = false; // unlock the handcuffs
    digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
    Serial.println("Handcuffs OFF");
  }

  delay(100);
}

I designed this basic code to detect and track when the handcuffs are unlocked. Mainly, it is a conditional that keeps track of the states (on) or (off).

 

Reading about Margaret Hamilton’s story was incredibly inspiring—especially the way she navigated a male-dominated field with intelligence and persistence. What stood out to me most was how seriously she took her code, and how she fought to ensure software was treated as a critical part of the Apollo mission. I admired her foresight and the way she challenged the idea that software was somehow secondary to hardware or engineering. As someone learning to code, I often feel like software is invisible or taken for granted, so seeing Hamilton’s impact reinforced how powerful and essential it really is. Her story makes me feel like being detail-oriented, stubborn, and thoughtful in code can actually change history.

Norman’s piece made me reflect on how often I prioritize function over form—especially as someone who tinkers with circuits and code. But his argument that emotional design improves usability resonated with me deeply. I’ve definitely had moments where a sleek interface or an intuitively designed device made me feel more confident and willing to explore, even if I didn’t fully understand the technical side yet. It’s fascinating to think that our emotional response can override frustration or confusion. The idea that beauty encourages persistence really stuck with me—I now realize that good design isn’t just about solving a problem, but about shaping how people feel while solving it.

 

Link to demo :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VTiRrGRrAj3aiTELux77pBYvCo3-3btS?usp=drive_link

For this week’s unusual switch assignment, I wanted to create something active and game-like — something that felt more like play than a standard circuit. That’s how I ended up designing a target switch using a cardboard folder, aluminum foil, and a ball. Instead of pressing a button or stepping on a pedal, the switch is triggered when I successfully throw a ball at the target. The core of my design is a DIY target made by slightly opening a cardboard folder and placing aluminum foil inside each flap. These foil strips are wired to the Arduino, and act as the two sides of a switch. When the ball hits the folder, it causes the foil pieces to touch momentarily — closing the circuit and turning on an LED.

const int SwitchPin = 3;
const int LEDPin = 12;

void setup() {
  pinMode(SwitchPin, INPUT_PULLUP); 
  pinMode(LEDPin, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
  const int Input = digitalRead(SwitchPin);

  if (Input == LOW) {
    digitalWrite(LEDPin, HIGH); // LED ON when ball hits target
  } else {
    digitalWrite(LEDPin, LOW);  // LED OFF otherwise
  }
}

The biggest challenge was making sure the foil only touches when I want it to — in this case, only when the ball hits the folder. I had to tape the foil securely and position it so that the folder remained slightly open. If it’s too loose, the foil touches on its own; too tight, and the impact doesn’t close the circuit. This project gave me a better understanding of how a simple digital input can be adapted into a physical interaction, using only basic materials like cardboard and foil. I also gained more confidence working with pull-up resistors and reading pin states accurately.

Margaret Hamilton is the kind of legend we don’t talk about enough. She wasn’t just a programmer, she was a problem-solver and a pioneer who helped put men on the moon while juggling motherhood and working in a field dominated by men. In the 1960s, software engineering wasn’t even considered a real thing yet, and yet, there she was, writing the code that saved Apollo 11 from disaster.

One of my favorite parts of her story is how NASA ignored her when she wanted to add safeguards to prevent astronauts from making mistakes. They told her, “That would never happen.” And then of course it did happen, and she had to fix it under pressure to bring Apollo 8’s astronauts home safely. That’s the kind of foresight and brilliance that makes her work so groundbreaking.

What’s even more inspiring is that she did all this while raising a kid. She’d bring her daughter to the lab, let her sleep on the floor while she worked late nights writing code. It’s proof that women have always been capable of incredible things in STEM. Hamilton didn’t just write software; she helped create an industry, proving that software wasn’t an afterthought, but the future.

Reading Donald Norman’s take on affect and design really got me thinking about what we do in physical computing. His idea that attractive things work better made me question the way we usually talk about design. It’s so easy to think that usability is the most important thing, but Norman makes a solid point—aesthetics, usability, and functionality all need to work together, depending on the context. That’s something I really want to keep in mind as we start building our own devices.

With physical computing, we’re not just designing screens or interfaces—we’re making real objects that people will physically interact with. That makes things more complicated because now we have to think about how something looks, how easy it is to use, and what it’s actually meant to do all at the same time. The balance between these depends on what we’re building. If it’s something like a smart home controller, aesthetics matter because it’s going to sit in someone’s house, and they’ll see it every day. But if we’re making a fire escape guidance system, function is everything. No one in an emergency should have to stop and figure out how to use it, it just has to work.

The three teapots analogy really stuck with me too. It’s a great reminder that different users and situations need different design choices. I hadn’t really thought much about how a person’s emotional state affects how they interact with a device, but it makes so much sense. If someone is stressed—like using a medical alert system—they need clear, obvious controls. No distractions, no unnecessary design elements, just pure functionality. But if we’re designing something more creative, like an interactive art installation, we can push the boundaries and make it more about the experience rather than efficiency.

As we start designing our own projects, I don’t want to fall into the trap of just thinking, whether it works or no? Of course, usability matters, but if something feels cold or uninviting, people won’t want to use it.

At the end of the day, physical computing isn’t just about circuits and code but rather about how people feel when they use what we create. A device isn’t just good because it functions. It’s successful when it resonates with people and feels right to use. That’s something I really want to keep in mind moving forward.