Category: Spring 2024 – Aaron (Section 001)

My main motivation came from Professor Aaron. Professor wanted us to be weird so I decided to be as weird as I can and decided to make a kissing switch 🙂

It started of with the ideation where I took inspiration from one of the videos we were shown in class where a guys connected cables with aluminum foil to his face and his face moved with the sound. That way I decided that one part would be attached to the face and one part would be placed on a cardboard pad.

With some sketchy soldering I soldered the Arduino cables to longer ones so that the kissing pad can be more accessible from a distance:

Here is how the kissing pad looks like:

Finally when everything was connected, I wanted the lights to blink in the tempo of a heartbeat when a kiss occurs. So naturally I searched up on Google what is the heartbeat of a person that is kissing. The answer was: 100. Let’s implement that into our code:

void heartbeatLED() {
  // Calculate the duration of one beat in milliseconds
  int beatDuration = 60000 / 100; // 100 beats per minute

  // Half of the beat duration for on and off phases
  int phaseDuration = beatDuration / 2;

  // Blink the LED with heartbeat rhythm
  for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { // Blink for 100 heartbeats
    digitalWrite(led0, HIGH); // Turn the LED on
    delay(phaseDuration); // Wait for the on phase
    digitalWrite(led0, LOW); // Turn the LED off
    delay(phaseDuration); // Wait for the off phase
  }
}

Finally, this is how everything looks connected together (practical presentation of how it works will be shown in class):

Video Demonstration:

I also arranged the lights in a heart formation whilst still thinking of how to make a “casing” in heart shape to make it look more pretty.

Overall I really liked exploring the Arduino for the first time and really tried to make something weird and push myself out of my comfort zone. I’m really excited for what is about to come 🙂

While reading the articles, it was challenging to find a link between the ideas due to the different design contexts discussed: Norman’s focus on emotional interaction with design and objects, versus McMillan’s article on Margaret Hamilton’s significant contributions to the Apollo mission. However, both narratives highlight the importance of innovative thinking and emotional engagement in creating technologies that are not only functional but also meaningful and intuitive for users. Adding to this, the concept discussed earlier in the semester, that design should be self-explanatory, resonates here. For example, Norman might argue that a well-designed object or interface naturally guides the user on how to interact with it, reducing the need for extensive instructions or training. Hamilton’s software, by being robust and error-tolerant, exemplifies this principle on a technical scale, ensuring astronauts could rely on it under the most extreme conditions without needing to understand its complexities.

Now after having read both articles I realize how little beauty is appreciated in how productive it will make us. What I mean is that most people, myself included wouldn’t have thought that by getting a nicer looking laptop or by being in a more aesthetically appealing place that we could be more productive. However, not necessarily productive in general. The first author emphasized that positive affect (the experience of positive emotions, or feelings) could allow for broadened thinking, and make people more willing to disregard minor difficulties, and that positive affect is linked with a more aesthetically appealing design. That is not to say that all designs should focus on aesthetics. In a rocket or a plane for example, it is important that the design focus more on function so as to make it as easy as possible to complete simple tasks and not be distracted.

In the reading about the Apollo program I found it interesting how those in charge felt that because they had because “they were trained to be perfect” it meant that they wouldn’t make any mistakes. I wasn’t sure why they would think that. Personally, I don’t believe that they believed that they were perfect, instead I think those in charge thought that it would just be very unlikely that a mistake would happen, and maybe they just didn’t want to deal with adding any redundancies/error detection. Ultimately, the problem was that human-centered design wasn’t taken seriously.

As I was reading both articles I thought about the things I use around me. I’m not sure if this relates but I found that I am more willing to use something if its aesthetically appealing or just made me feel good in general. I’ll give an example: I was more willing to write notes or draw after buying a pen which feels nice to write with or if the notebook I’m using looks nice. Or, its easier for me to write code/debug if the environment around me makes me feel better. For example, being in bed is more comfortable than being in a public environment in my opinion.

#1: Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better

In “Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better,” Donald Norman explores the impact of affect and emotion on design, emphasizing the relationship between usability and aesthetics. He clarifies how the effect affects cognitive function. For instance, although negative affect increases depth-first processing and focusses cognition, positive affect promotes creativity and flexibility. In addition, Norman highlights the importance of human-centered design and how important it is in high-stress situations when it may reduce issues and enhance usability. He illustrates these concepts and shows how environment and mood influence one’s choice of design by comparing three teapots. Furthermore, he argues that beautiful things work better because they can foster better performance, learning, and overall harmony.

He also looks at how affect influences behavior, arguing that negative affect improves focus and concentration while positive emotion fosters creativity by molding perceptions and judgments. Moreover, he then highlights how crucial thoughtful human-centered design is in high-stress situations, when cutting down on distractions and annoyances becomes crucial. Conversely, in neutral or advantageous conditions, the design’s pleasure and visual attractiveness might encourage positive affect, inventiveness, and the capacity to withstand minor setbacks. Norman challenges the notion that utility should take precedence over beauty in design and instead advocates for a balance between the two. In the end, he disavows the idea that style should supersede utility, highlighting the need for truly beautiful objects to have a purpose and be practical.

#2: 

When I first read the statement ‘attractive things work better’, I tried to justify it in my head but it simply did not work. However, through reading the article this statement made more sense.
It shows that human perception and behavior are highly influenced by attractiveness, which often determines choices and preferences. Attractiveness holds a user’s attention to different things that it is being used on whether products or individuals, and even ideas; positive emotions are evoked while trust as well as credibility are built up. Furthermore, ‘attractive’ features, which in this context refers to sleek, clean, minimal design, make the product easy to use. With so many options around us and so many choices to make, a simple or attractive design can provide us the relief we need, meaning they work better.

When I think of this concept my mind goes to Blackberry vs iPhone. iPhones work better, no doubt. iPhones are more attractive. At a young age I was not extremely aware of the limits each design has or the technology yet I understood iPhones earned a higher rank. This is due to the simple design, blackberry has a mini screen which is sort of limiting, and a ton of buttons. On the other hand, the iPhone had a simple home button and a wide screen to increase convenience. Which in return, made me realize the iPhone is more attractive, more user friendly, works better.

The second text discusses the programming process of Margaret Hamilton. Due to her innovation, she is regarded to be one of those who have laid down a foundation for today’s digital world. She even was involved in Apollo missions, which shattered all stereotypes and moved humanity further towards space. This therefore means that she became a symbol of breaking the gender barrier created and sustained over time. Ada Lovelace’s story can be seen as a mirror of the present-day version of Margaret Hamilton’s innovations in computer programming that made her called “the first computer programmer in the world.” For instance, during the 19th century, Lovelace cooperated with Charles Babbage on his mechanical universal computer called Analytical Engine. although the societal norms were suggesting science was not a women’s area, through her ideas and logical skills, Lovelace created grounds for all modern computation processes we know nowadays. For example, still serving as an icon for female empowerment within STEM fields even today are aspects such as Lovelace’s long-standing impact on software engineering and related issues similar to Hamilton

The reading titled Emotion & Design and its exploration of the applications of form vs function led me to consider how people respond differently to objects that have similar affordances.

The author’s teapot examples reminded me of Pierre Paulin’s Dune Ensemble Sofa which has attracted some attention online in the past few years. In this case, the object certainly holds a significant form factor, thus producing a positive affect in the user and enhancing its central purpose – comfort. I feel that what makes the design of this object effective is that its inferred functionality also feeds back into this affect as users immediately associate expansive soft surfaces with the act of laying down. Moreover, the object’s purpose is expanded through its adoption of a ‘conversation pit’-like structure which encourages social interaction. With this design element, it can be argued that the object is transformed into and can be interacted with as a space in and of itself.

However, as mentioned in the reading, these interesting design choices (which embrace both form and function) can only be appreciated if presented in the appropriate low-risk social and domestic context.

Conversely, a hospital bed has similar affordances and a similar purpose of ensuring the comfort of the user but functions very differently as an object. To begin with, the need for it to be economic (financially and spatially)  leads to the bed’s compact and minimal stature. This links to the author’s point about form hindering processes within high pressure situations as, for example, getting a patient on and off of the Dune Ensemble Sofa would be tedious and uncomfortable. Naturally, the hospital bed’s function fills in the lack of form with features such as handles and an adjustable reclining angle.

Linking to the reading on Margaret Hamilton, I feel that what she was able to accomplish is even more impressive considering the usability of the tools she was working with. While they were less complex than the ones in use today, their design was also less informed by what we now know about usability and human-centred approaches to design. This thereby affected both form (exposed raw materials, unclear affordances) and function (manual processes, limited tech) of what Hamilton and her team were dealing with on a daily basis. Considering this, I am now curious to see whether studies have been done on the topic of usable design and efficiency across different use cases.

Jihad Jammal

Intro to IM

Professor Aaron Sherwood

Reading Reflection Week 8A

March. 26, 2024

 

Response #1: Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

The essence of innovation, as illustrated by Margaret Hamilton’s story, pushes us to reconsider our perception of technological achievements. Hamilton’s legacy embodies the reality that groundbreaking advancements are often the culmination of relentless, behind-the-scenes effort rather than just celebrated moments of success. Her contributions, critical yet initially overshadowed by the astronauts’ lunar feats, prompt a deeper reflection on how we recognize and value the architects of progress. This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative that often glorifies the end result while glossing over the intricate processes and individuals essential to these achievements.

 

This narrative invites us to search for the ‘Margaret Hamiltons’ of our current era, whose pivotal work may be lurking in the shadows, unrecognized due to prevailing biases or the allure of more sensational accomplishments. It raises pertinent questions about the criteria we use to evaluate and celebrate innovation. Are we too focused on the visible peaks of success, neglecting the vast contributions that form the foundation of these achievements? The persistent gender gap in technology further complicates this discourse, suggesting that the undervaluing of foundational work might not just be a matter of oversight but also of systemic undervaluation of contributions from diverse voices. Hamilton’s story, therefore, not only highlights the need for a broader appreciation of the many facets of innovation but also calls for a more inclusive recognition of who gets to be celebrated as innovators.

 

 

Response #2: Attractive things work better

It’s clear that there’s a deep relationship between how things are designed and how we feel about them. The idea that well-made objects have the power to arouse happy emotions raises the possibility that great design is about more than just functionality—it’s also about appealing to our sense of beauty and wellbeing. My viewpoint has been expanded by this investigation into design philosophy, which shows that good design is more than just functional—it also has an emotional component that improves our day-to-day existence. It offers a vision for the direction of design, one that seeks to improve our lives by skillfully fusing beauty and functionality rather than just satisfying the most fundamental functional needs. This growing knowledge highlights the transformative potential of design, emphasizing its ability to improve the quality of our daily interactions by carefully balancing form and function in addition to solving practical issues.

 

Citations:

Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better. Interactions Magazine, 9, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/543434.543435

McMillan, R. (n.d.). Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself. Wired. Retrieved March 26, 2024, from https://www.wired.com/2015/10/margaret-hamilton-nasa-apollo/

“Design matters, but which design is preferable depends upon the occasion, the context, and above all, upon my mood” (page 2). We can see that Norman starts off by giving us a warning that design is subjective especially when relying on mood. With that, I believe that mood is such an important component in design…is it designed for an emergency situation where everyone is panicking (push/pull door example) or is designed to impress your guests in a calm environment (teapot example)? Designers must consider such aspects when considering usability because “the principles of good human-centered design are especially important in stressful situations” (page 6). The author further discusses color and how color was fulfilling some need, but one we could not measure…he further adds, “Although my reasoning told me that color was unimportant, my emotional reaction told me otherwise” (page 3). This proves that when it comes to design, there shouldn’t be solid reasoning like you would see in Mathematics or the Sciences. The essence of design is intuition, emotions, and ultimately pleasure in completing tasks or perhaps user-feedback. 

At some point during the reading, I believed that attractive things don’t work better; I disagreed with the author if attractive meant minimal, an example would be the Tesla vehicles. When Tesla made their cars too simple (almost no user feedback), it caused confusion & accidents, which shows how minimalism can sometimes make things chaotic. That’s what I initially believed, but upon page 7, I came to terms with the author where he says “to be truly beautiful, wondrous, and pleasurable, the product has to fulfill a useful function, work well, and be usable and understandable.” The author follows and says that good design means that beauty and usability are in balance. That’s where I came to agreement that attractive things work better if and only if beauty does not surpass usability. Unfortunately, not every designer believes that, such that they minimize too much in attempts to make things more modern/appealing, but doing this can make the things harder to use (usability) and understand (intuitive design).

Finally, this brings me to Margaret Hamilton. While reading about her experiences, I couldn’t help but draw parallels to modern design practices and the ongoing designs inspired by minimalism. Hamilton’s role in developing the Apollo computer system proves the importance of prioritizing functionality & reliability over aesthetics, especially in high-stakes environments. In this case, I might agree that beauty and usability mustn’t always be in balance; sometimes, usability can surpass beauty for the sake of safety. In today’s world, minimalist designs often dominate, and Hamilton’s story reminded me of the potential consequences of overlooking usability and prioritizing “the balance” as Norman defined it. With that, I wonder, would Norman still believe that we must balance beauty and usability, or would he make an exception, considering high-stakes environments like the Apollo program?

RESPONSE: Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself

It is indeed reassuring to read about Hamilton’s journey and her crucial part in a momentous occasion in human history when one considers the strength of perseverance and innovation. It also draws attention to the structural obstacles that women in STEM areas have encountered and still face. This was even highlighted in the article, “It was 1960, not a time when women were encouraged to seek out high-powered technical work.” This article reminded me of the contributions of women to the first computer Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, ENIAC.

In the case of the ENIAC, it was programmed by six women: Kay McNulty, Betty Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Meltzer, Fran Bilas, and Ruth Lichterman. These women were integral to the operation and programming of the ENIAC, performing complex calculations and programming tasks that were critical to the computer’s success. Women’s entry into the industry was perceived as a means of freeing up males for more “skilled” work, as the field was not considered prestigious. Despite their essential roles and substantial technical accomplishments, their contributions were not widely recognized during their lifetimes, and the narrative of computing history often sidelined their efforts.

Question: What mechanisms are present today that either hinder or promote diversity and inclusion in tech and engineering?

RESPONSE: Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better

The theme that I could connect with was “the pleasure of use. As someone deeply invested in the intersection of design and user experience, I’ve always been captivated by products that deliver not just functionality but also the pleasure of use. Take, for example, the tactile feedback of a high-quality mechanical keyboard. Each keystroke produces a satisfying click, transforming the mundane task of typing into an enjoyable experience. It’s not just about the act of typing; it’s about how the device makes me feel while I’m using it.

“true beauty in product design is multi-dimensional, integrating functionality, ease of use, and pleasure”

Question: How can designers balance usability and aesthetics in product design, ensuring that neither aspect is compromised?