Category: S2026 – Aya

The Margaret Hamilton reading honestly made me think about how often people say “that would never happen” just because it’s easier than actually dealing with the possibility that it might. Like the people around her weren’t necessarily careless, but they were comfortable, and that comfort made them dismiss things that didn’t fit their expectations. What I liked about Hamilton is that she didn’t rely on that kind of thinking at all, she kept imagining worst-case scenarios even when no one else wanted to. When she talks about picturing “headlines in the newspapers… and it would point back to me,” it didn’t feel dramatic, it just felt like she understood responsibility in a very real way. It made me realize that being “good” at something isn’t just about skill, it’s also about how seriously you take the possibility of things going wrong. And I feel like we don’t really do that anymore, we trust things like apps and technology without thinking about what’s behind them or who had to sit there and think through all the ways things that could fail.

The Norman reading felt a bit weird to me at first because his whole idea that “attractive things work better” sounded almost too simple, like something you’d see on a Pinterest quote or something, but then the more I thought about it, the more I realized he’s not really talking about the object itself, but about us and how easily we’re affected by how something looks or feels. The part that actually stuck with me was when he says we “overlook design faults” when we’re in a positive emotional state because that just felt very true in an uncomfortable way. Like if something looks nice or feels smooth, we’re way less likely to question it, even if it’s not actually working properly. And that kind of made me disagree with him a little, because it’s not just that beauty helps, it also kind of distracts. It made me think about how often we trust things just because they look polished, and we don’t even realize we’re doing it.

When I put both readings together, they didn’t feel like they were saying the same thing at all, but they still connected in a weird way. Hamilton is so focused on not overlooking anything, even the smallest possible mistake, while Norman is basically saying that we, as people, do overlook things all the time, especially when something feels good or looks nice. And I think that difference between the two readings is what made this interesting for me, and at the same time created that connection in my head of the bigger picture of both readings.

Arduino file on GitHub

Arduino Set-up:

Arduino Illustration:

Project Demo:

IMG_9952

Concept

For this project, I wanted to create a switch that isn’t like a traditional button. Instead of pressing something with my fingers, I used my body as the interaction. I ended up designing a switch using my elbow.

The idea is simple. I placed two pieces of aluminum foil on both sides of my inner elbow. One piece is connected to pin 5, and the other is connected to ground. When my arm is straight, the two pieces of foil don’t touch, so the circuit is open and the LED stays off. When I bend my arm, the skin folds slightly and the two pieces of foil press together, turning the LED on.

Code Snippet I’m Proud Of

const int switchPin = 5;

void setup() {
  pinMode(switchPin, INPUT_PULLUP);
  pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

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

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

This part looks simple, but it took me a while to understand why it works. Using INPUT_PULLUP was the key because it keeps the input stable when nothing is touching it and flips to LOW when the foil is touched, connecting the pin to ground. Once I understood that LOW actually means pressed, everything started to make sense to me.

Problems Encountered

The biggest issue I had was that the LED kept blinking randomly, even when I wasn’t touching anything. At first, I thought my wiring was wrong, but the problem was actually the input pin floating. Without INPUT_PULLUP, the Arduino couldn’t decide whether the input was HIGH or LOW, so it kept switching between them.

Another problem was the foil itself. I initially wrapped the foil around the wires, which caused constant and unstable connections. This made the LED either stay on or flicker all the time. I had to learn to keep the foil flat and only tape the wire at one edge.

I also got confused by the lights on the board. I kept looking at the green power light instead of the LED connected to pin 13, which made debugging way harder than it needed to be.

Reflection

This project was definitely frustrating at first, but it helped me understand how circuits actually work. Before this, I didn’t fully understand how important small details are, like which row you use on a breadboard or how stable a connection needs to be.

If I were to improve this project, I would make the foil setup more durable, neater, and less sensitive to unintentional contact. It works now, but it can definitely be cleaner and more organized.

Overall, I feel like I for sure moved from just following instructions to actually understanding what I’m building, and I’m really proud of myself.

Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better

I found Norman’s reading quite interesting, especially his argument that emotions affect how well we use objects. From the previous readings we have done in this class, I just assumed good design was mainly about functionality and usability. I also thought that even if the object is not as aesthetically pleasing, if it works well, then everyone would use it. I did not realize how much emotional appeal plays a role in the design. Norman claims that attractive designs can actually improve how people think and solve problems. When people feel positive emotions, they are more flexible, while negative emotions make people more focused but also more stressed. This made me realize that design is not only about making something work well with clear directions, but also about how it makes people feel while using it.

I liked the example of the three teapots. Each of the teapots emphasized something different. Even though one of them is harder to use, he still keeps it because he enjoys how it looks. This made me understand that objects can have an emotional value. I started thinking about how many objects I own for the same reasons. I sometimes choose things because they look nice or match my mood, even if they are not the most practical option.

This reading also made me realize how much of the visual design, like the color and layout, might help determine how people interact with it, beyond just making it usable. The reading definitely changed how I think about design by showing that usability and aesthetics should be combined, especially to have that emotional appeal. But I wonder if something can ever be too beautiful, can an object’s attractiveness ever get in the way of its function?

 

Her Code Got Humans On The Moon — And Invented Software Itself

The reading about Margaret Hamilton’s work really inspired me. The fact that the concept of software did not even exist when she started working on the Apollo missions is crazy. I never thought about how much space travel depended on programming. It made me realize how much courage and creativity it must have taken to build something new, especially in a male-dominated environment and time, while even being a mother. Not only did she lead her team successfully, but she also fought to have her ideas heard, even when people initially dismissed her concerns.

I was amazed by the story of the Apollo 11 landing, where the computer started giving error messages. But because Hamilton designed it to prioritize the most important tasks, the module still landed safely. She showed how important it is to anticipate problems before they even happen.

This reading made me reflect on how many of the innovations we have today have been taken for granted and built by people who fought the system in their time. It also makes me wonder how many people today contribute to so much work but stay unrecognized, or their credit is handed over to someone else. Hamilton’s story shows the importance of visibility and persistence in tech and in life, something that we should all take note of.

https://github.com/skyorachorn/Intro-to-IM/blob/cd17b870a87cc39315260f98a0846555e5ce6a13/Week8_UnusualSwitchassignment.ino

See VDO:

https://youtu.be/OVTbmxnJp2E?si=spcco5jThT1CARs4

Concept:

This project explores a hands-free switch using facial movement. Instead of using hands, I used eyebrow movement as an input. When I frown, the system detects it and turns on a sad red face. When I relax my face, it switches to a happy green face.

How it works:

The system uses a digital input to detect whether the switch is ON or OFF. This input is controlled by copper tapes to contact triggered by eyebrow movement.

If the input is HIGH, the green LEDs (happy face) turn on.

If the input is LOW, the red LEDs (sad face) turn on

Handwritten Sketch Diagram:

Circuit:

https://youtu.be/OVTbmxnJp2E?si=spcco5jThT1CARs4

 

Each LED is connected to a digital pin with a 330Ω resistor to limit current.
Red LEDs and green LEDs are connected to separate pins so they can be controlled independently.

⸻

Code that I proud of:

if(state == HIGH){
  // Normal face → Green LED lip 
  for(int i=0;i<7;i++){
    digitalWrite(greenPins[i], HIGH);
    digitalWrite(redPins[i], LOW);
  }
} else {
  // Angry face → Red LED lip
  for(int i=0;i<7;i++){
    digitalWrite(greenPins[i], LOW);
    digitalWrite(redPins[i], HIGH);
  }
}

 

Problem encountered:

Initially, I tried connecting multiple LEDs to one pin, but I learned from Professor Aya’s lecture that Arduino pins have current limits. I solved this by using multiple pins and resistors.

Reflection:

This project helped me understand how digital input works and how the human body can be used as an interface. It also taught me polarity and about current limitations and proper LED connections. I found it interesting that something as simple as facial movement can be turned into an interactive system.

Connecting to the other article, for this article I found a fascinating contrast between emotional design and highly technical engineering  . Hamilton’s work on Apollo software emphasised much more on reliability, error prevention, and anticipating human mistakes, especially in stressful situations where users (astronauts) could not afford confusion. This aligns with the idea from the design reading that in high-pressure contexts, systems should prioritize clarity and function over aesthetics. However, both readings highlight the importance of understanding overall human behaviour whether it is just emotions affecting usability or human error affecting software systems. Personally, this connection made me rethink of design as not just visual or technical, but deeply resonating with human creativity and thinking. It also made me appreciate how Hamilton’s foresight in error-handling actually reflects a kind of “design thinking,” even in engineering. Together, the readings suggest that good design whether it’s interfaces or software comes from anticipating and seeing how humans actually act, think, feel, and make mistakes.

Another aspect of the Hamilton reading that I found particularly meaningful was how her work challenged both the technical and social assumptions about software and who could create it. At the time, software wasn’t even considered a central or prestigious part of engineering, and yet Hamilton insisted on its importance, eventually creating the term “software engineering.” This made me reflect on how new fields or ideas are often undervalued until their impact becomes undeniable. I also found it significant that she anticipated human error such as the famous Apollo incident where the system prioritised critical tasks during overload which directly connects to the idea of designing for real human behaviour rather than ideal users. This raises a broader question for me which is how many current technologies today are still being designed under unrealistic assumptions about users? Overall, this reading reinforced my understanding that innovation isn’t just about technical skill, but also about challenging norms and recognising problems that others overlook.

In the reading on design and emotion, The idea that “attractive things work better”, caught my attention not because they’re objectively more functional, but because they change how we think and feel while using them  . This challenged my assumption that usability is purely logical and efficiency-based. I realized that whenever I feel relaxed or positive, I would actually be more creative and tolerant of small problems, which aligns with the author’s argument about positive affect enhancing breadth-first thinking. This made me reflect on my own experiences with technology and even on my own projects as sometimes I focus too much on making things technically correct and being a perfectionist rather than enjoyable. It also raises a question for me was that if aesthetics can make users overlook flaws, is there any risk that designers might rely too much on appearance instead of improving actual functionality? I think the reading suggests a balance, but it leaves open how far that balance should go in real-world design.

Another idea from this reading that stood out to me was the contrast between positive and negative affect in shaping how we process information. The author explains that negative emotions can actually improve focus and depth of thinking, especially in stressful situations. This made me reconsider my assumption that feeling “good” is always better for performance. In fact, I can relate this to moments when I am under pressure such as before exams or deadlines where I become more focused and detail-oriented. However, this also raises a question that how can designers intentionally design for both emotional states? It seems difficult to create a system that supports both creative exploration and precise decision-making at the same time. This tension made me realise that design is highly dependent on context, and that there is no single “best” design and that only the designs that are appropriate for specific emotional and situational conditions.

Hamilton wanted to add error-checking code to the Apollo system that would prevent this from messing up the systems. But that seemed excessive to her higher-ups. “Everyone said, ‘That would never happen,’” Hamilton remembers.

But it did.

This really begs the question of whether or not they would’ve taken her concerns more seriously had she been male. It’s insane to think that, despite the extent to which she had already proven her competency, they still dismissed her – especially when her concerns turned out to have been very reasonable.  Even today, women have to work harder than men in most places to be perceived as equally competent – and I think plenty of women would understand what I mean here. So I can’t imagine how much more difficult it must have been back in the 60s.

Stereotype threat is a psychological phenomenon defined as the pressure a person feels to disprove negative stereotypes regarding a group they identify with – be it race, gender, class, etc. Studies have proven that stereotype threat (ironically) has a significant negative impact on a person’s performance. Even being reminded of the stereotype before a task can change the outcome. It’s a vicious self-fulfilling prophecy that further perpetuates negative stereotypes and can hurt a person’s self-esteem, which then further affects performance.

Being a woman who grew up in a misogynistic environment, I really struggled with this cycle for almost as long as I remember. I have so much respect for Hamilton given what she must have had to overcome to thrive as she did.

The author discussed two types of information processing: “affect” and cognition. Of course, these aren’t exact neuroscientific terms (as he mentions himself: “to avoid the technical debate … I use the reasonably neutral term of ‘affect'”), but I really appreciated his interpretation of this concept, as it reflects a very real biological mechanism that significantly impacts our day-to-day lives.

Neuroscientists understand that, to some extent, our reasoning can come after we make a decision. As animals first and foremost, we fundamentally operate on instinct and unconscious processes, especially in faster or emotionally salient situations.

Take a simple example — trying to escape a hazardous situation. Suppose that fleeing people encounter a door that wont open. The anxiety-produced response is to try again harder. When the first push doesn’t open the door, press harder, kick, and even throw the body against it

This is illustrated beautifully by studies on subjects with a severed corpus callosum: when one half of a subject’s brain is asked to explain an action that was triggered and carried out by the other half (thus completely outside its control and awareness), the subject may provide a reasonable rationale and experience the temporal illusion that this reasoning came first.

But all this thinking comes after the fact: the affective system works independently of thought. Your thoughts are occurring after the affective system has released its chemicals.

Affect, as described by the author, is an instinctual gut reaction, while cognition comes afterward. You can see this pattern emerge especially in fields such as philosophy. In fact, I think philosophy – particularly ethics – is a perfect example. There is an almost universal, intuitive sense of right and wrong among our species: a gut feeling that assigns value judgments, just as the author describes (this idea is controversial, but I’m referring to instinctual affect applied to and affected by our species’ advanced social environment.) Ethical philosophy emerges when someone attempts to construct a cognitive framework through which these gut value judgments can be derived. Of course, since these judgments are instinctual, there is no inherent logical framework underlying moral affect, which is why there is no universal agreement on which ethical philosophy is most reliable or “true” (as far as I know).

Each system impacts the other: some emotions — affective states — are driven by cognition, and cognition is impacted by affect.

Demo Below:

 Concept:

I have an extra Arduino I got years ago, so I decided to scour through the parts to see if I can find something to use, which I did! The switch here is more functional rather than unusual, but its hand-less nonetheless. The 2 main players here is an RFID reader and a dot matrix module. The RFID reader reads the card in your pocket while you walk through the door. If the card matches the accepted card(s), a green LED will flash and a smiley face will be shown on the dot matrix module. However if a person with the wrong card passes through the door, the red LED will flash and the dot matrix will show a huge X.

Implementation:

void loop() {
  if (!mfrc522.PICC_IsNewCardPresent() || !mfrc522.PICC_ReadCardSerial()) {
    return;
  }
...
}

We begin our loop code with this, and what this does is just check if the RFID module can read a card at all, if it can’t the rest of the code won’t run at all.

// Long green flash when correct card and show smile.
if (match) {
  Serial.println("ACCESS GRANTED");
  digitalWrite(GREEN_LED_PIN, HIGH);
  showSmile();
  delay(3000); 
  digitalWrite(GREEN_LED_PIN, LOW);
}

Here if the card scanned matches the card we give access to, we turn on the green pin and show the smile on the dot matrix module, this lasts for 3 seconds before turning things off.

else {
    Serial.println("ACCESS DENIED - ALARM");
    showX();
    
    // Repeated red flashing
    for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
      digitalWrite(RED_LED_PIN, HIGH);
      delay(100);
      digitalWrite(RED_LED_PIN, LOW);
      delay(100);
    }
  }

If the card that is read does not match the card we want, then we will show the X on the dot matrix and repeatedly flash the red LED 5 times.

// Reset visuals
lc.clearDisplay(0);
lc.setLed(0, 0, 0, true); 
mfrc522.PICC_HaltA();
mfrc522.PCD_StopCrypto1();

At the end of the loop, we just turn on a singular dot that is top left of the dot matrix, to show that it is currently on standby.

ShowX and ShowSmile are functions that simply turn on the correct dots in the matrix to show the image we want to show.

GitHub Code is here.

Reflection:

The only thing I would really add here is maybe a buzzer with 2 different sounds for either granting access or rejecting access.

 

Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better

This was definitely an interesting reading, which, in summary, discussed the positive relationship between aesthetics and usability. Norman makes the point that although aesthetics do not play a role in the function of a certain design, they allow the user to forgive or overlook certain shortcomings in a design.

I will admit, initially, I was skeptical about his idea. I assumed that it doesn’t matter if a design is aesthetically pleasing; if it works, then that’s what matters. But my perspective shifted when one of the lines mentioned a clean versus a dirty lookng car, especially since cars are things I look at much more frequently than I analyze designs. That made me realize that even without realizing it, we are drawn to more aesthetically pleasing designs and are almost tricked into thinking that something works better when it looks better. As I think back on my mid-term project, I also make a connection where if I had included more graphics and visual elements, I would have been able to overlook certain drawbacks in the game.

Overall, I gradually got more and more convinced by his idea the more I read, and I fully believe in his idea.

Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

I really appreciated how this reading highlighted the idea of Hamilton being the backbone of software programming and space exploration, especially the part that emphasized that she and the team were practically inventing key concepts of programming.

One of the things I particularly liked was the labelling of her as a positive radical and her ability to foresee certain mistakes before they happen. It really portrayed her passion towards programming and that she took it as more than just a career. It also still made me think about her motivations when programming and her meticulous nature. Especially since she faced ridicule as she mentioned for being a working mother. It made me question whether her detail-oriented nature was a result of her passion or fear of further ridicule and facing even further criticisms and blame.

I thought the text was concise, straight to the point, and delivered an important message in a beautiful way. I loved how it didn’t stop at just the process of Hamilton programming before the Apollo launch, but even mentioned what happened during the Apollo launch and how Hamilton had to quickly find a way to fix the error that occurred despite her constant warnings. It focused on both the process and the outcome.