Category: Spring 2019

I believe that I had a clear definition of interactivity prior to reading this excerpt, however, Crawford forced me to think about where I draw the line between interaction, which he views as an actual two-way “conversation” between two things, and with passive participation and engagement.

I do agree with Crawford on all his points, especially as he goes through examples to make his points clear. I especially agree on his point that interactivity can be defined as a spectrum, with many products and activities being much more interactive than others. For example, actors subtly changing their performing habits show-to-show based on the audience’s reactions would be an interactive experience for the audience and actor but would not be nearly as interactive as a conversation between two friends.

I also enjoyed his discussion of the difference between graphic design, user interface design and  interactivity design. Because I am very interested in these fields, I found his insights into the differences between the three and these roles’ evolution and future to be very interesting as I try to learn about these fields.

This project is combining the first assignment with the second. The switch is activated by attaching a piece of foil on the bottom of my foot, which is attached to wire that is attached to 5V. Each of the colored foils will light up a colored LED if a foot steps on it.

The main goal of the project is to create a game where you copy exactly what the program does. There are 5 levels to this game and the game gets harder as you progress. The program will light up a random LED and when it finishes displaying the pattern and the player (you) will have to step on the correct colored tin foil in order to pass the round. The first round will start with one color pattern, then 2 colors if you pass, and so on and so forth. If you step on the incorrect color, you have failed and the game will restart.

Going into this project, I had trouble because the program would jump ahead and think that I’ve already finished the pattern when in fact, I haven’t. It was fixed by adding a delay and adding conditions to check whether the pattern has been stepped on already.

int level = 1;
int pattern[5];
int prevRead[] = {LOW, LOW, LOW};

void setup() {
  pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(4, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(5, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(6, OUTPUT);
  Serial.begin(9600);
}

void loop() {
    for (int i = 0; i < level; i++) {
      int color = random(3, 6);
      digitalWrite(color, HIGH);
      delay(500);
      digitalWrite(color, LOW);
      delay(500);
      pattern[i] = color;
    }

  for (int i = 0; i < level; i++) {
    Serial.println(pattern[i]);
  }

  Serial.println("======");

  int i = 0;
  while (i < level) {
    bool prevAllClear = true;
    for (int pin = 0; pin < 3; pin++) {
      if (prevRead[pin] == HIGH) {
        prevAllClear = false;
      }
    }

    bool currentTouch = false;
    for (int pin = 0; pin < 3; pin++) {
      prevRead[pin] = digitalRead(pin + 3);
      if (prevRead[pin] == HIGH) 
        currentTouch = true;
    }

    if (prevAllClear && currentTouch) {
      if (digitalRead(pattern[i]) == HIGH) {
        i++;
        Serial.println("good job!");
      } else {
        level = 0;
        Serial.println("wrong!");
      }
    } 

    for (int pin = 0; pin < 3; pin++) {
      prevRead[pin] = digitalRead(pin + 3);
    }

    delay(100);
  }

  delay(500);

  digitalWrite(6, HIGH);
  delay(1000);
  digitalWrite(6, LOW);

  level++;
  
  if (level == 6) {
    while (1) {
      digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
      delay(200);
      digitalWrite(3, LOW);

      digitalWrite(4, HIGH);
      delay(200);
      digitalWrite(4, LOW);

      digitalWrite(5, HIGH);
      delay(200);
      digitalWrite(5, LOW);

      digitalWrite(6, HIGH);
      delay(200);
      digitalWrite(6, LOW);
    }
  }
}

 

Reading Response: The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford

In reading this chapter, I discovered that I often committed the crime that Mr. Crawford most frowned upon: mistaking reactionary things for interactive things. However, Mr. Crawford can rest easy in his office in Ohio, as he cleared up the difference for me. As well as this great service, it was also helpful to hear his little metaphors he presented, such as comparing input, process, and output to listening, thinking, and speaking.  However, as a theater student, I am inclined to disagree with his commentary on how theater is not interactive. In contrast, I would argue that some genres rely most on interactions with the audience. In commedia dell’arte, for example, the actors must read the audience energy, process it, and decide how best to modify the performance. And the audience must do the same: absorb what the actors are giving, process it, and react whether it is with laughter or silence or walking out the door. As much as I argue for this, though, I also recognize that this isn’t all types of theater, so I can get over this little injustice. Overall, I enjoyed Mr. Crawford’s snark throughout the reading and especially in the review questions. Amongst the pleasant sarcasm, though, he approached the topic of interactivity with clarity and confidence. And for that, I thank him. And to answer his question: no. Rugs are not interactive.

 

For the following assignment, I have created a circuit with two switches and 8 LEDs (two for each colors: Red, Green, Yellow, and Blue). The first switch will light up the LEDs in order from Red to Blue, and the second switch will blink the lighted LEDs in a random intervals.

The police are coming!! But don’t fear they shall calm down with the push of a button.

Chris Crawford’s paper on defining interactivity aligns closely with my own understanding of design within this class. As I conceptualized and experimented with my code, I began to consider the contextual interaction or use of what I am creating. Crawford establishes a useful distinction in interaction, that passive or “non-conversational” designs cannot be classified in the same light as those that are a product of a conversation between a product and user. I do think that this allows us, as a society, to distinguish overused ideas of interaction from those that are truly interactive. I do, however, believe it is important to acknowledge that our conception of interaction and interactivity has come from complex and specific forms of human and technological development. Fridges, and their lights, upon their inception, would be revolutionary forms of interaction.

In today’s world, where interaction becomes more complex, and human behaviour becomes more closely intertwined with technology, the type of interaction we desire becomes that of the conversation. Fridge lights have become quite ubiquitous, and so have books, but our value of interactivity should not be hierarchical, rather an acknowledgement of the range of interaction. Much of Crawford’s argument lies in a conversation that exists within programming and processing. This is the context of our class and interactive media is useful, however, should not overshadow existing technology like doors, or create normative ideas about making all technology the same. What would doors or fridge lights look like if there were regular conversations between them and users? How much would that cost? Is that worth it?

I believe that we should let non-conversational interactions exist in our paradigm, and undergo a process of determining what type of interaction we desire from products.

 

“Is interactivity utterly subjective?” I thought this was a compelling question, especially with regards to our conversation about interactivity in class.

Crawford suggests that interactivity could possibly be one of a few “objective truths”, however also still not completely objective- as he goes on to prove how we can use personal subjectivity to measure the degrees of interactivity within an object. Here, he offers the example of Boolean properties, and how we tend to think of interactivity as a Boolean–it either exists or it doesn’t. Crawford proposes that we should instead view interactivity as a “continuous variable with relative measures”. An example of this would be to rate or measure interactivity from high to low, or strong to weak. This leaves some level of subjectivity, in that each person may rate an interaction differently on the scale.

I appreciate Crawford’s efforts in reaching a middle ground. He does not completely dismiss the objectivity nor the subjectivity of interactions, and instead constructs a means of using both concepts in our understanding of what is interactive, and what is not.

As for Crawford’s review question “come up with your own damn definition of interactivity!”– that is a question I hope to revisit and answer by the end of this course.

The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford, acts as a guide for explaining the nuances of using the term interactivity, and describing which experiences can be deemed interactive. Crawford clarifies that the term interactivity is often contested and misunderstood, as people attribute it to user experiences that do not necessarily interact with the user, but rather simply provide a reaction or a response. It was interesting to see how Crawford compares interactivity to a conversation, where two or more entities engage in active dialogue; having to carefully listen and think in order to produce an adequate response  (or speak).

Moreover, establishing that successful conversation through “listening, thinking, and speaking”, is metaphorical in the sense that it does not have to exclusively occur between two humans; since these are processes associated with the human senses. Crawford illustrates that such conversations can occur between different types of system – both digital and analog. I felt like the reading acted as only the tip of the iceberg for the discussion on interactivity

Crawford begins his work by exploring the overuse of the word ‘interactivity’, a word that is thrown around to describe almost every product in the market. He, thus, attempts to define it himself. Crawford metaphorically uses the actions of “listening”, “thinking” and “speaking” as the foundations of interaction. He states that interactivity requires two active participants and exists on a continuum rather than an either/or situation or (as its most often confused as) an intensified emotion or even simply an act of participation. Instead, it is almost a conversation wherein the three aforementioned actions are optimised.

Crawford also describes the role of interactivity designers as ones who have to consider both the form and function in creating their design. They work by maximising the strengths of their computer in the aforementioned actions (listening, thinking and speaking) and minimising their weaknesses. He urges that interactive designers, although should be learning from the past, must not cling firm to their foundations in “graphic design” but more importantly, incorporate “form with function”.

Greeting fellas,

So today I was wondering what type of switch to do. We were told we need to make a switch not using our hands, but what if someone else triggers the switch (I’m not using my hands for it, duh).

So what I did was is connected the LED as we did in class and then the wire that goes from the power (5V) to the LED i just divided it into two. One part is connected to an edge of a card using tape, the edge had foil tape and the other one is connected to another card the same method. After that I place a card in between them to separate the contact and ask someone to pick a card (the middle one of course).

There we go, didn’t use my hands to trigger the switch 🙂