Category: S2026 – Aya

Today’s readings cover different points. However, both texts urge creators to go beyond just technical skills. They encourage creators to make their works meaningful so that their audiences can have expressive experiences. The text by Tigoe about making interactive art made me realize that our creations don’t have to be perfect, because it’s really the audience’s experience that completes our creation. He also explains that our task is to create something that allows the audience to discover meaning on their own in a creative way, whether they end up enjoying it or not.

This connects to the other text by Tigoe about physical computing. I relate to this second reading because when I start a project, I often begin with an initial idea and do my research, only to realize that it has already been done by someone else. Because of that, I end up letting go of the idea and trying to come up with something new. This text helped me see that instead of giving up completely, I can still build on ideas and improve them by using different tools and approaches. Tigoe’s examples made this clearer, especially the dolls and pets example, which is something I would love to try in the future. Overall, both readings made me realize that creating is not just about coming up with something entirely original or technically perfect. It is more about making something meaningful and open enough for people to experience in their own way.

Here are pictures and videos:

video demo

^ if that does not work here is the google drive link to the video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cqjdY0IDc7IcCNzmsgcox7MWBKphB9yT/view?usp=sharing

Here is the GitHub link: https://github.com/farahshaer/Intro-to-IM/blob/56d1cd018f4c8af02c5288f277d48bbc5288f498/sketch_apr4a_20260404184101.ino 

Overall concept

So, for this project, I wanted to make a system where red and green LEDs react to the light in the environment. I used a photoresistor to detect the amount of light in the environment. When it’s dark, the red LED turns on, and when it’s bright, the green LED lights up. There is also a button that lets you make the LEDs blink if you want.

Code Highlight

One part of the code that I am particularly proud of is where the LEDs respond to the light and button input, basically the logic that decides which LED to turn on. I used digitalWrite for the red LED to turn it fully on or off, and analogWrite for the green LED for brightness control using PWM. It also makes the LEDs blink if the button is pressed. Here is the code snippet:

//Dark Environment
  if (sensorValue < 790) {        //if the light level is below the midpoint value = dark
    digitalWrite(greenLED, LOW);  //turns the green led off in the dark
    if (buttonState == HIGH) {    //and if the button is pressed make the red led blink
      digitalWrite(redLED, HIGH);
      delay(50);
      digitalWrite(redLED, LOW);
      delay(50);
    } else {
      digitalWrite(redLED, HIGH);  //if the button is not pressed keep the red led on
    }
  }
  //Bright Environment
  else {                                  //if the light level is above the midpoint value = light
    digitalWrite(redLED, LOW);            //turn off the red led in the light
    if (buttonState == HIGH) {            //if the button is pressed make the green led blink
      analogWrite(greenLED, brightness);  //to set the brightness based on the mapped sensor values
      delay(50);
      analogWrite(greenLED, 0);
      delay(50);
    } else {                              //if the button is not pressed keep the green led on
      analogWrite(greenLED, brightness);  //to set the brightness based on the mapped sensor values
    }
  }
}

Reflection/Future work

For the wiring, it was pretty straightforward. The photocell is connected to the analog pin A0 and reads the light level, and is connected to a 10k resistor. The red LED is connected to digital pin 8 because it only needs on/off control. The green LED is connected to PWM pin 9, allowing its brightness to be controlled through code using analogwrite. The button is connected to digital pin 2, and its state is read using digitalRead. In the code, the sensor values are first constrained to a usable range and then mapped to a PWM range of 0-255 using the map function. This allows the green LED’s brightness to adjust to the amount of light detected by the photocell. The code then checks whether it is dark or bright, turns the correct LED on, and makes it blink if the button is pressed.

This assignment was very helpful. I used the lecture slides for reference. It helped me learn how to combine the sensors leds and buttons. Using the PWM for the green LED allowed me to explore the brightness control instead of just turning the LED on and off. Also, looking at the photocell readings in the serial monitor helped me understand the sensor range and change it in the constrain and map functions.

For future improvements, I could add more LEDs and maybe make the blinking speed or brightness based on how dark or bright it is, or I could incorporate more sensors to make the system even more interactive.

Here is my hand-drawn schematic:

I attended the IM final exhibition last semester, and my absolute favorite one was this tilty stand by Hubert Chang where you had to stand on a skateboard and steer it to control a little spaceship in a video game. It was so much fun to play and the one I found the most engaging due to the full-body involvement. I really love skating so I had the highest score – until some girl cheated by keeping her hands on the table to balance herself.

(ignore the terrible posture)

I definitely agree with this, and I think it applies to art as a whole to some extent as well. I believe that artist interpretation matters less than the viewer’s, because one of the greatest things about art is the creativity and inspiration it can spark in people. Some of my favorite movies (listed below) are ones that are so confusing and surreal to the point where I have to construct my own narrative afterwards to put the pieces together. Like waking up and trying to recall a dream.

• Possession (1891) (Also indirectly introduced me to Sonic Youth, my favorite band of all time, via a youtube edit)
• Stay (2005)
• I Saw the TV Glow (2024)
• Climax (2018) (this one has a more defined plot, but it’s such a dizzying movie I had to include it)
• Enter the Void (2009) (VERY mixed feelings abt this one..)

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

This was an interesting read, especially looking through all of the different projects. What stood out to me was the author’s point that many physical computing projects repeat the same themes every year. At first, this surprised me because I usually think that in creative fields, you are supposed to come up with something new and original. But reading this made me realize that originality does not always mean starting from scratch. It could be taking a familiar idea and just approaching it in a different way, which can still lead to something unique. I think this perspective makes me feel a bit better about the physical computing projects, because I was always afraid that my idea would have already been created or would be too similar to someone else’s concept. I also thought that these projects were too complex, but they actually come from simple concepts, some of which we even covered in class.

I also really liked the discussion about thescooby doo painting and the video mirror, where it was visually impressive but sometimes limited because people mostly just stand there and wave their hands. I thought this was interesting because it points out that something can look cool, but still does not create a very deep, meaningful interaction. Overall, I think this reading helped me think more about the relationship between creativity and physical interactions. It made me realize that the most interesting projects come from designing meaningful ways for people to interact with it. I think this reading also helped me get some inspiration from others for this week’s assignment.

 

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

This reading definitely made me think differently about what interactive art actually is. I loved how the author argued that artists should not interpret their own interactive work, it something I never thought about. I always assumed that explaining your concept was needed so the audience would understand what you mean, but it is the opposite. The artwork should allow people to form their own interpretations through their experience with the work. I found this idea interesting because it shifts the focus away from the artist and instead lets the audience become part of the creative process.

I also liked the way the author described interactive art as a conversation between the artwork and the participant. It reminds me of the constant point in my understanding IM class, where the artwork is not the finished piece, but it is only complete through the audience’s interaction. The end result of the artwork could be different for some people, even all of the small design choices, like whether something looks touchable or has indicators, can guide how people interact with the piece, and can influence the end result. So sometimes we should limit the guidance, if the goal is to make the experience full and meaningful for each person.

int brightness = 0;
int buttonState = 0;


void setup()
{
  
  pinMode(13, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(11, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(2, INPUT_PULLUP);
}

void loop()
{
  
  buttonState = digitalRead(2);
  if (buttonState == LOW) {
  digitalWrite(13, LOW);
} else {
  digitalWrite(13, HIGH);
}
 
int sensorValue = analogRead(A1);
brightness = map(sensorValue, 0, 1023, 0, 255);
analogWrite(11, brightness);

  delay(10); 
}

I don’t have my arduino yet, so i had to do this on tinkeCcad.

One led is triggered by a button, which acts as a digital sensor, and the other is controlled by a photoresistor, and increases in brightness the more light in the environment is detected. Not really creative, but I’m crunched on time.

UPDATE

That was TERRIBLE, I didn’t know what I was doing. Anyways, I finally got my Arduino kit, so I made a quick alternative version:

I completely forgot there had to be two sensors, but I hope that the previous iteration can make up for that. Please have mercy.

Here’s a video of the circuit in action, and below is the schematic.

Here’s the GitHub link.

int brightness = 0;
int buttonState = 0;


void setup()
{
  pinMode(12, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(11, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(2, INPUT);
}

void loop()
{
  // timing yellow lED
  for (brightness = 0; brightness <= 255; brightness += 5) {
    analogWrite(11, brightness);
    delay(30);
  }

  // triggering red LED if button is pressed
   buttonState = digitalRead(2);
  if (buttonState == HIGH) {
    digitalWrite(12, HIGH);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(12, LOW);
  }
  delay(10);
}

One idea that stood out to me in Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits and misses is the author’s challenge to the assumption that how commonly used project ideas lack originality. Before reading, I often felt that repeating familiar interaction concepts such as sensors, mirrors, or gesture-based inputs was somehow “less creative.” However, the text argues the opposite that recurring themes actually provide a foundation for innovation, since variation and context are what make a project meaningful. This really shifted my perspective on creativity. Instead of just focusing on being completely original, I now see value in how a project frames interaction and meaning. For instance, the discussion of theremin-like instruments highlights how simple gestures (like waving a hand) can feel empty unless they are placed within a meaningful context. This made me reflect on my own projects, where I sometimes prioritize technical implementation over the meaning of interaction. The reading makes me think, am I designing interactions that actually “mean” something to the user, or just demonstrating functionality?

Another idea that I found particularly interesting is the critique of “low-structure interaction,” especially in examples like video mirrors or body-as-cursor systems. The author points out that while these projects are visually appealing, they often lack depth because they only mirror user input without really encouraging intentional or meaningful engagement. This made me rethink what really makes an interactive system successful. I used to assume that responsiveness alone such as tracking movement or generating visuals was enough. But now I realize that interaction design also requires structure, constraints, or a clear “language” of interaction, This connects to the guideline of reflecting critically rather than just describing, because it really challenges my assumption that having more technology = better interaction. But instead, the reading suggests that simplicity with intentional design can be more powerful. It leaves me with an important question: how can I design interactions that guide users toward meaningful experiences, rather than just reacting to their presence?

One idea that strongly challenged my assumptions in Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen is the argument that artists shouldn’t interpret their own work for the audience. The statement “don’t interpret your own work” (page 1) directly confronts how I usually approach creative projects, where I often need to explain my intentions to make sure people get it. This reading made me realize that over-explaining actually limits the audience’s freedom to engage with the work. If I pre-script how users should think or act, I am essentially controlling their experience rather than designing for interaction. This connects to my own experience in IMA projects, where I sometimes prioritize clarity over openness. The reading pushes me to rethink this balance instead of ensuring understanding through explanation, I should design interactions that naturally guide interpretation. But this leaves me with how much ambiguity is productive before the interaction becomes confusing rather than meaningful?

Another idea that stood out to me is the concept of interactive art as a “conversation” rather than a finished statement in pages 1-2. The author emphasizes that once the work is built, the creator should “shut up” and listen to how users respond through their actions, interpretations, and even misunderstandings  . I found this particularly interesting because it reframes user interaction as something dynamic and evolving rather than something to be controlled. The comparison to directing actors in pages 2-3 helped me understand this more deeply just like actors must find their own emotional meaning whereas users must discover their own way of engaging with the work. This idea challenges my tendency to design interactions that are a bit too rigid.

Physical Computing’s Greatest hits and misses

This was definitely an interesting read. I was surprised at how many of the experiences we have, such as the dancing game at the arcade, incorporate the concepts we learned in class. This definitely made me think of just how simple some of these experiences really are built when I actually once thought they were extremely complex to build. Especially since we touched over some of the concepts in class such as the hand cursor. It helped me gain some inspiration of what I may want to include in this week’s assignment. I was confused by the title of the text after I finished reading it, because of all the examples mentioned in the text, I didn’t find an example or theme mentioned that would be considered a “miss.”

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

This reading made me reflect back on the text we read in the first half of the semester about giving users indicators of how to use certain systems. I remember when I read that specific reading, I fully agreed with the author that indicators should definitely be included in designs, but after reading this text, my opinion has changed.

I think the idea of just giving hints to the users of what to do, instead of fully spoon-feeding it to them, makes an experience much more entertaining and fulfilling.

I think what fully changed my opinion is when I thought of my previous experiences in an interactive space, which was TeamLab, in order to fully decide whether I would have enjoyed explicit indicators or not. I remember in one the zones, you had the opportunity to write your name on a lizard or drawing of your choice, and it would be scanned and projected on the ground. Naturally, I followed my lizard, and was completely surprised when my lizard was “killed” when I stepped on it. I definitely think my discovering of this on my own made it much more entertaining experience than it would have if someone had told me that this is possible. It made it feel more fun as I felt that I “discovered” or “achieved” something new.

 

 

https://github.com/da3755-ui/intro-to-im/blob/84cc7d7002b1b2e0cfad3839631bc4e4fa16566c/UnusualSwitchAssignment_IntroToIM.ino

 

The Concept

For this assignment I had two attempts and changed my concept. my first concept was a switch that lights up when you put glasses on. I ended up changing it to a led that lights up when a book is closed.

The Process

I used the same process for both concepts. Connected to my breadboard was an led with a jumper wire connected from the longer leg to a digital pin, and from the shorter leg a resistor then a wire connecting to ground.

For my conductor I used aluminum foil. I put aluminum foil on two pages of the book and placed a jumper wires on each foil. the first wire is connected to ground while the second to a digital pin. When the book closes, the foils touch the led lights up.

Challenges

The main challenge was in my glasses concept. ALthough my wiring and code were correct, I had a problem with connecting the foils and the wires together and getting them to light up the LED. After removing the wires from the foils and putting them towards each other I realized the issue. To fix this for my book concept, I made sure the tips of the wires were properly secured to the foil to ensure proper conduction for the foils.

I also  had to watch many Youtube videos after my failed attempt to get a full understanding of the difference between digital pins and power, understanding how LEDs work, and how circuits open and close with the arduino. I also watched many tutorials on digital read, write, and inputs to understand how it works. I also rewatched the lectures and decided to switch my code from using INPUT to INPUT_PULLUP after I heard someone  in class say it helps since arduino already has a built in resistor and this makes it mroe stable.

Code snippet

  if (state == LOW) {   
    digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
  }
  // digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
}

I am actually most proud of the commented out code. This code is what helped me understand whether the problem in my failed attempt was because of wiring or because of the foils. After commenting out almost everythung out, leaving only relevant code, and adding this final line of code, I realized the led was working and the issue was with the foil.

Reflection

For future works I would love to create something with other forms of sensors like a sound sensor so the switch can light up with sound.

References

I also cant figure out how to move the code to github so here is the code

int book = 2;
int ledPin = 13;

void setup() {
  pinMode(book, INPUT_PULLUP);
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
  int state = digitalRead(book);

  if (state == LOW) {   
    digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
  }
  // digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
}