Category: S2025 – Mang

For this weeks assignment, we were asked to create an unusual switch. Passing by the NYU sports gyms, inspiration struck. I decided to create a switch that looked like a basketball hoop, and would light an LED when the ball was in the hoop, thus “completing” the circuit.

For this circuit, I created a basketball hoop within which I implemented wires. I wanted a balance between it actually looking like a hoop, but also still being functional. I wrapped a styrofoam ball with aluminium foil to make sure it would conduct electricity, and thus complete the circuit when the ball was dropped into the hoop, making it the catalyst for completing the circuit.

Upon the successful completion of the circuit, an LED would then light up.

I struggled a bit having the wires stay in place, and ensuring that the ball made successful contact with them everytime. My setup was very rough and could probably have used more aesthetic features, but i was more focused on making sure the idea actually worked. Maybe in the future, it might be worth it to try using copper tape to make sure the switch is completed regardless of the balls position.

Overall, I had fun coming up with an idea, and then implementing it to see whether the circuit would be completed or not.

Video of the switch: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bRdIRVIdDPK5BbK1ZsrdfVIz8_hRawbn/view?usp=sharing

The remarkable contributions made by Margaret Hamilton to the Apollo moon mission and the advancement of contemporary software engineering are highlighted in the article “Her Code Got Humans on the Moon – and Invented Software Itself”. I had heard about the Apollo missions before reading this, but I had never given much thought to the code and problem-solving that enabled them. It is amazing to see that Hamilton’s contributions not only aided in the successful landing of astronauts on the moon but also significantly influenced the creation of software as a profession. She demonstrated how important software is in high-stakes situations by emphasizing error detection and rigorous programming, which saved the mission when an excess of data nearly led to a failure. This helps me understand how difficult programming is and how much accountability software professionals have to ensure everything functions properly.

Reading about Hamilton’s accomplishments also got me to thinking about how underappreciated certain technological trailblazers are, particularly women in STEM fields. She was doing more than just coding, at a period when there were no official rules or accepted practices, she was establishing the groundwork for software engineering. The difficulty of gaining attention in a male-dominated sector is demonstrated by the fact that she created the phrase “software engineering” in order to have her work considered more seriously. I find myself wondering how many other pioneers have gone unnoticed over the years. Her experience motivates me to believe that programming is about more than simply creating code; it is also about solving problems, coming up with creative solutions, and making sure things work, especially when lives are on the line. I now have a greater regard for the history of computing and the people behind major technological advancements.

I found the initial anecdote of the three teapots to be especially interesting. Norman spends nearly a third of the reading comparing and contrasting them, noting that he might choose one over the others depending on the occasion or his mood. In stark contrast, my first thought was to wonder why anybody would one teapot let alone three. Beauty is really in the eye of the beholder here, since on the rare occasion I make tea it involves a mug and a pre-packaged teabag. Even his mention of displaying them on the windowsill just made me question why he would waste space doing so.

As for the larger discussion on aesthetic/usability and affect/cognition, I have some mixed feelings. The explanation of how the chemicals in your brain can completely warp your perception was very well-done, what with the examples of tightrope walking or opening an emergency door. That being said, the claim that “attractive things work better” feels far too heavy-handed (although Norman himself notes that the claim is heretical). The preceding two sentences mention that a product that looks good will encourage the user to overlook its flaws, and to me that hardly means ‘working better’. You could definitely argue that the emotional aspect could improve the user’s enjoyment, but that is countered by claiming that performance would be better with an uglier, more efficient version. You could also argue that attractiveness helps the product sell, but then you are outright avoiding the point of debate. I would agree more if his claim was about how attractive things face less criticism, and are accepted more easily.

When I first saw the title of this reading, I assumed that it referred to the three mathematicians that starred in Hidden Figures (2016). I was instead pleasantly surprised by a fresh perspective that was similar yet different, and happens to result in the creation of software engineering. As a Computer Science major, it was very cool to see how software was viewed before it became commonplace, and get to learn about the factors that shaped its development into what it is today. It’s still hard to imagine how they managed to put a man on the moon while being stuck in the era where the term ‘physical computing’ was all too literal.

In that sense there is a clear tie-in to our Arduino work, what with having to wire components in by hand and having actual limitations on memory, although thankfully we still have access to an IDE. Even aside from the Interactive Media perspective, I got a lot out of this piece that can apply to the software engineering class I’m taking. For example, having to make asynchronous calls to the backend of our web application and dealing with potential errors. We’re actually currently in the middle of writing system tests for our next deliverable, so reading through the ‘That would never happen’ section was particularly painful.

For this assignment to create an unusual switch, I decided to create a circuit with the cutest tool possible- my emotional support plushie.

( His name’s Poochababy 🙂 )

Concept:

I feel like hugs are meant to comfort you and “light” up your world when you’re sad or lonely, so that’s my concept here! So when you hug Poochababy, the LED lights up!

the circuit:

First, I formed a simple circuit, using jumper wires, alligator clips, resistors, 2 red LEDs, aluminium foil, some tape and of course, Arduino Uno! Then I connected the ends to Poochababy with some tape. I then taped some aluminium foil to my T-shirt to complete the circuit when I hug Poochababy.

Here’s a close up of the circuit and the connections. And the link to the video demo :

Challenges and Improvements :

I first tried to use only jumper wires, but it was too short. So I fixed that by using alligator clips, which helped me getting longer wires. It was also a bit hard to place the aluminium foil correctly, but a few adjustments and strips of tape helped!

For improvements, I would definitely like to hide the wires in some neater way  on Poochababy, some sort of covering maybe. I would also like to experiment with codes, maybe a sweet audio message to play when we hug Poochababy.  I would also like to adjust the LEDs using code, maybe for them to blink faster or slower when we hug tighter!

 

 

 

The idea that attractive things work better made me think about how much design affects the way I interact with everyday objects. I realized that when something looks nice or well-designed, I’m more likely to enjoy using it, even if it’s not perfect. It made me think about my phone apps some are so easy to use just because they look clean and simple. I don’t know if I fully agree that looks always make something work better, but I do see how a good design can change my mood and make me more patient. It also made me wonder if we sometimes value appearance too much and overlook function. Shouldn’t something work well even if it’s not pretty?

Reading about Margaret Hamilton really opened my eyes to how important her work was in getting humans to the moon. I had never thought about the software behind the mission, or that a woman played such a huge role. It made me question why we don’t hear about people like her more often. It also made me think about how women in tech are often seen as exceptions rather than just part of the team. I liked how the article highlighted her focus on preventing errors it reminded me how important it is to think ahead in problem-solving. It made me want to learn more about other hidden figures in science and tech who made big changes but didn’t always get the credit.

I created a simple but fun circuit using one LED light, three wires, a resistor, and copper tape. My goal was to make an unusual switch that doesn’t use hands. Instead, I used my little brother’s legs to complete the circuit!

I wrapped copper tape around both of his leg. When he touches his legs together, the copper tape connects, and the circuit closes, lighting up the LED. When he separates his legs, the circuit opens and the light turns off. It was really funny to see it work—it felt like he had leg powers!

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Kk2lkQgoAyybXSYWVmY2Dog9uQVX_DMq

This project taught me how the human body can become part of an electronic switch. It also made me think about how switches don’t always need buttons or hands—they can be playful and interactive in unexpected ways.

In the future, I want to add sound effects using a buzzer so that it not only lights up but also makes a sound when the legs touch. I think that will make the experience even more surprising and fun!

Norman’s article made me rethink what makes a design successful. I always assumed that usability was the most important goal, but he shows how our emotions can change the way we interact with objects. When we feel good, we tend to be more flexible, more creative, and more forgiving of small flaws. On the other hand, when we are stressed or anxious, even simple tasks can become difficult. This means that good design is not just about how something works, but also about how it makes us feel while using it.

His story about the three teapots really brings this idea to life. One is intentionally useless, another looks awkward but works well, and the last one is both practical and thoughtful. What stood out to me is how he chooses which teapot to use based on his mood. Sometimes he wants efficiency, other times he wants elegance or creativity. This shows that design is not just about solving a problem in one way, but about understanding the different contexts in which people live and make decisions.

In the end, Norman is not saying beauty is more important than function, or the other way around. He argues for a balance where usability, emotion, and aesthetics all work together. That idea stuck with me because it feels true not just for products, but for how we make choices in general. We are not purely logical or purely emotional. We are a mix of both, and the best designs (and maybe even the best ideas) are the ones that recognize that.

Reading about Margaret Hamilton made me realize how much of the space race story we usually miss. We often focus on the astronauts and the rockets, but here was someone working behind the scenes, writing the code that actually made the missions possible. What is fascinating is that she was doing all of this before “software engineering” was even considered a real field. She helped define it as a serious discipline, at a time when software was seen as secondary to hardware.

One moment that really stood out was when Hamilton tried to build in error protection after her daughter accidentally caused a crash in a simulation. She was told it would never happen during a real mission, but it did. Because of the precautions she took, the astronauts were able to land safely. It makes me think about how we often overlook the importance of preparing for the unexpected. Her work was not just about getting things to function, but about thinking ahead and designing systems that could handle failure.

There is also something meaningful in the way she worked: methodical, thoughtful, and persistent, even when her contributions were underestimated. She showed that innovation is not just about new inventions, but also about foresight and responsibility. Her story raises an important question: how many people are quietly shaping the world through careful, often invisible work, and how can we do better at recognizing their impact?