Why can’t buttons, knobs, and sliders be more tactile and organic? As our world gets more and more digital, and inevitably more seamless, what will happen to the heirloom… or your pair of trusty-rusty leather boots. When the objects in our lives are all made out of materials like plastic and glass, which we fear to scratch, how will we relate to them-imprint ourselves into them. Read more »
| Meaning and narrative: I took this week’s Softness topic in the direction of ‘meaningful’… meaningful objects, memory, sentimentality, history. It seems to me that we are heading toward a tricky situation with technology and the things that fill our lives. More and more of the objects that we live with are plastic and temporary. Computer and phones, the two things we probably interact with the most, are thrown away every couple years… and theres no way to make them really special-not like a pair of boots or or hardwood floor. We are loosing the ability to imprint ourselves in the objects we own… no history. Soon will be gone the days of the heirloom dresser, and the old cracky photo album from your grandma. Because technology is going to be put in everything, and technology changes, we are going to have to replace everything we own every couple years. I know that sounds hyperbolic, but it may be true… even the house, the once stable fixture in our lives, is fast becoming more fragile and stuffed with soon-to-be outdated technology.We need to start to deal with this problem. We need to start making digital heirlooms… something to encapsulate meaning. I starting thinking about the objects in my life that are meaningful to me: old leather boots, jewelry, photos, memorabilia, etc; and discovered that I don’t really care about the digital interfaces in my life. I care about the digital files, because they embody memories, but not the hardware. I would, in an instant, take a new computer if all my files and settings came with it… and I think thats a shame. We should care about the things in our lives… love them and their uniqueness.So, I decided to look at the cell phone. It is a good candidate to come up with some solutions for because its small, relatively simple, and is with you all the time. I made a list of the qualities of the things I care about (boots / wallet and jewelry: see presentation link), and a list of my cell phone’s qualities, then compared them. This is what I found: I think the reason I can’t relate to my phone is that I have to give it away every few years, and its made out of materials that wear very poorly. So, I decided to propose a few design changes: 1) Made the hardware modular, extendable, upgradeable. 2) (the more radical one)Make it out of materials you can imprint yourself in: leather and wood. The result is a little wood/leather/screen box. The words I hear people use when they hold it are like: “executive” “nice” “ooooo” “pretty”… no bad stuff… only good. I think people are missing these materials in their lives. Organic and human. It just makes sense.I know some companies are starting to make electronics with wood cases and such… but I don’t think thats enough. We need to change the paradigm of consumer electronics from “buy lots of cheap” to “buy few really good,” to make our devices more meaningful. And that will require a more upgradeable hardware. I hope we get there.Link: |
|
| This week for softness is about MATERIALS! I like them… or at least I really love some of them, especially felt. There is something extremely pleasing to me about the pureness and density of felt. It is waterproof, insulating, soft, firm… kinda like fabric you can mold. So, when material week came I thought I would give a felt project a try.I have been interested in the idea of really tactile and soft interfaces for some time; something you can really sink your hands into in an organic way… thats missing from electronics. I decided to combine both of my interests and make Conductive Felt. I needed to first figure out how to somehow inject a conductive material into the felting process. I tried unraveling conductive thread first… but that was going to take too long… and then I thought of steel wool, and that worked; it also made a nice conceptual parallel: only using natural wool and steel wool to make felt. After I had the solution, it was time to make felt.Felting (the process of making felt) is tricky and time-consuming. There are two ways: wet and dry. I went for the wet felting method because I thought I could get a better a better mix of the two wools. Problem is, its really hard to make good felt… esp with wet felting. The process is simple… apply heat and pressure to wool… and ta-da you get felt… but in reality, its HARD to get a good dense felt. BUT, I did manage to make some decent stuff after a few tries and it was time to hook up some electronics.The result was not only a felt resistor… but a variable felt resistor… which is really useful. This is whats happening in the felt: You ground one side of the felt (white lead and safety clip in the photos/video) and insert a positive electrode (pin or any conductive thing) anywhere in the felt. Depending on how close the end of the electrode is to the ground the more or less steel wool the electricity has to travel through; because the steel wool has some resistance, it adds up to an analog value you can put into a microcontroller or amp.What you see in the video is the felt resistor acting as a variable resistor to control a servo motor… but you can use it to control anything, just like a knob or button.
This project is really exciting to me. I think I am on to something that has not really been explored before… and thats nice. It needs some more development, like better felting and implementation… but I’m working on it. I think I am going to create a larger installation for the Softness final… we will see! |
|
| The word ‘interaction’ in the ITP and digital media world has become somewhat of a dirty word. Describing works as being ‘interactive,’ nowadays, means almost nothing and ends up sounding trite. I think this is because it has been often misapplied and is not really understood. So, I was excited for this week’s Softness of Things topic: interaction. Could we maybe get a-hold of a good definition of ‘interaction’?Despina enlisted Dr. Paul Pangaro (an expert in Cybernetics) to help us wade through the science of interaction and come up with some answers. As it turns out, there isn’t really a good concrete definition for interaction, all you can really do is look at a situation and asses HOW interactive it is… and there are tools to help with that.One exercise that really helped me understand the systems I create, is to diagram the feedback system using four stages: goal, action, environment, and feedback. These four areas create a loop that can be constructed from any perspective or context. The idea is simple when one loop is sitting there by itself, but when multiple intelligences are interacting and mixing their own loops, things get more complicated. It is the presence of multiple loops, I believe, that make an system more or less interactive.
So I went back and looked at a few of my projects and analyzed their Cybernetic systems. One project in particular caught my attention: my Connector project (the one with the rolling ball and LED’s). The Connector project was successful as an experience for the user because there was a really tight feedback loop: When you tilt the box, the ball rolls and you feel it instantly. It felt great and was fun, but not interactive. There is only one loop inside itself. What would happen if it had two loops working inside it? Interaction hopefully. I was interested enough in a ’smart’ ball rolling game that I decided to make one. This is how it works: (Also see schematic pdf) There is a brass ball which rolls on two rails. The rails are divided up so that they make an array of seven switches that are triggered by the ball rolling on them. Depending on which switch is activated (by the ball being on it), the whole platform, that supports the rails and ball, is tilted to a certain degree with a servo motor. The user still holds and tilts the game to make the ball move, but the game fights back… makes it harder… interacts. By adding a little a.i. into the game, the system becomes more interactive with the user. You find yourself cussing at the little wood box more… playing with it. Most of the success of the Connector game still carries through, but is augmented and supported with the interactive addition. Link: |
|
| Luckily, this week’s Softness of Things topic was space. So, I could continue my pursuit of a reactive space. This week I really wanted to get a sense of what a human-scale spacial system would feel like. As always, we only have one week to complete our projects, so a full-scale ceiling is out of the question… but a head-sized space is more feasible.So, I set out to create a small tunnel with a small ceiling that might simulate, or at least get closer to, a movable ceiling. Because of it’s small size, I was able to use servo motors, which made the whole thing much easier to deal with. In all I had five panels at about 12×20 inches, which made a tunnel/space that was 5 foot long and 12 inches wide. Three servos working together enables the five panels to move in a wave-like fashion in response to a person’s movement in the system.As you walk up to the tunnel, the first panel lifts up for you to enter. As you move in and down the head-tunnel, the panels move up and down to make room for your head.
It works ok… The panels are not as responsive as I would have wanted (mostly because the servos were lifting at their limit), but I think it starts to give you a feeling of something. Probably not anything like what a full-scale space would feel like, but something. People seemed to enjoy the prospect of a ceiling that moved… they really wanted to try it out when I told them what it did… but I think the actual experience was not that rewarding for them. For me though, it was most interesting to see the interest level in more human-scale objects. something you can really use your body with, instead of just fingers and hands. Aside from my observations of people, I got some verbal feedback that was interesting to me: A few people said they wanted mirrors, or at least some sort of translucent/reflective material, to be the movable panels. They said it would make it more interesting to be in it. It was supprising for me to hear this, because I was focused of the ’space’ of it. In my mind I kept picturing pockets of ’space’… and that would be interesting… but the thing is, you can’t really see space. You can only see the effects of space on light. In the prototype I made, it was all shadow in the tunnel… no light the tunnel could affect. I wonder if that is why people where suggesting mirrors or translucency… they were missing the depth. THAT is something I will put in my little bag of tricks to remember. |
|
| For Softness last week the topic was ergonomics. In my definition of ergonomics is probably wrong, but it all seems to be about the human body relating to things. How do we fit or interact with space. This all made me think of handles, mice (computer), gloves… all positive spaces, or spaces we wrap around. All of these didn’t really catch my interest… and maybe it was the architect in me, but I started thinking of the opposite: spaces that wrap around us. Like clothes that mold to your body or buildings that come to you. I think we are used to affecting small objects with our bodies, but what about big ones. What would it feel like to have a wall move around in response to you?I got lucky with timing because it just so happened to be motor week in pComp, so I figured I’d mix things up. What I envisioned was a hanging ceiling that would move and respond to you walking up to it and in it. The ceiling would move up to allow a little bubble of space for you to be in. Ideally, the ceiling would be a large area that many people could inhabit and interact in. A smooth, rich, surface would mold to your personal space. The people I talked to about this space/idea all really excited. There seems to be something in the largeness of the whole system… affecting a room, architecturally, with your presence.
Obviously, I could not complete a whole full scale ceiling in one week. So, I scaled back in a few ways: I changed the two-dimensional plane to a one-dimensional strip, and I made it physically smaller. It ended up being a little model where I could work out the mechanics and technical stuff, in preparation for a human-scale version. I learned a lot from this model. 1) DC motors are not way to go (too hard to accurately control), 2) IR sensors are a bit flaky and should be used with caution, and 3) A human-scale version of this project will be complex and expensive. The basic system works like this: six panels of cardboard are connected together so they make a snake-like structure. At four different points, the structure is hung from strings which are connected to motorized rods. Below the panels are IR sensors which sense if something is under a specific panel or control point. When the IR sensor ’sees’ something, it tells that motor to pull the panel up. When it stops seeing it, it tells the motor to lower the panel. Simple. And because all the panels are connected, it makes one undulating surface. This prototype was somewhat of a failure, but I learned a lot of what not to do. So for next week I am going to make a second go at it. The topic will be space, so this project is well suited for it. |
|
How am I not myself? How? am I not myself. How am I not, myself? How am I not myself? (Just a little ‘I Heart Huckabees’ humor for you).
Its self-reflection time over here at Softness of Things. Midway through the semester and a good time to sit down and think about what has gone on. I went through all of my projects and project descriptions for this class and noticed a few trends: I sure do like to be self-reflective and I sure am a formalist (in the art-world sense). I say that because in all of the posts about my projects I can’t help but question what I did and what I’m doing. Its like a self-critique, but all the time… but its a positive one. I guess its like saying “what did I really do? And is that the best thing to do?, where should I go next”… all very rational thought processes being applied to very non-rational actions. Which makes me wonder if they really do anything at all. I can pretend that my self-reflexivity actually influences my action… but does it? I have the feeling it does not, at least not very much.
I have habits; a somewhat well established style, and a picky aesthetic which have been developed for 20 years, so can I really change what I do by just thinking about it. It seems ironic to process such ‘from the gut’ work with a really rational action… but maybe thats just what it is: processing. Maybe that is how I process my work, or, ‘finish it off’-by thinking about what it was that I just did. I have noticed I enjoy talking about HOW I approached a problem, not WHAT I did to solve it; but when I am making the artifact I almost always make decisions because they FEEL right, not THINK right.
You as the reader may be saying to yourself “man, why doesn’t he just not think so much… stop worrying about it”, and I would probably do the same if I was reading this. The only problem is: I like it. I like to think of it as my way of balancing out my work. I make things from the gut and with reckless formal abandon, and then over rationalize all my decisions once they are done… I could trying inter-weaving those processes… that could be interesting. One really great side affect of the rational introspection, though, is I can talk about myself accurately and freely. I can be my own curator, which is helpful in times like these… but I wonder if its all B.S?
Oh, PS: Isn’t it funny how I can’t avoid thinking too much and making a jumble of thoughts… it is to me… even in a essay ABOUT reflexivity…. AHHHH INFINITE LOOP!
It was energy week at Softness of Things, actually, sustainabilty, energy, waste, composting week at Softness of Things. We talked about what all this environmentalism stuff means, the ideas that are out there, some things that you can do, some things you can’t do, and most importantly, what we all think we can do. I guess I have been entirely indoctrinated by Pliny Fisk while working on the Solar Decathlon, because all I can think of on the subject is embodied energy and ‘carbon life cycles.’
As for my response to ‘energy’ this week, I didn’t make a physical thing for once… I made an idea/image thing: an EER label. After thinking about my energy in my life, I discovered that I have no real way to make informed decisions about the products and foods I buy. Thats a shame because the information is out there. Embodied energy data and carbon footprint data exists for most things we buy (at least roughly), but there is no way to get at that info… especially at the time of purchase. So I did what the FDA did a while back, I made a energy version of the ‘Nutrition Facts’ label. My label displays a product’s EER or Embodied Energy Ratio (which I made up… but kinda exists), its manufacturing location, and its carbon footprint. I was surprised in my research to find that there is actually a ISO standard for calculating carbon footprint, and close to that sort of standardization for embodied energy… so all the info is out there; we just need our government to implement a program that makes producers display that data-just like Nutrition Facts. You can find my label proposal HERE.
As a second activity for Softness, we individually kept a log of all the waste we produced during the week. I found out I flush the toilet a lot. Earth day should jump on an idea like that, maybe send out cards to fill out for a week; it really made me take note of the things I throw away. It made me wonder though, what can I really learn from my habits? One habit I would maybe change is: bringing a cup to ITP to use over and over again, instead of using plastic cups and throwing them away-but would that really be better? What uses more embodied energy? We need a way to know.
Links:
| ‘Networks’ were the subject of this week’s Softness of Things Class. This time we worked in groups, so we ended up with larger projects. My group and I thought about networks for a while and became interested in a couple ideas: 1. Sound… its a good medium to play with… easy to deal with and project/control. 2. A ‘bad’ or naughty network… one that did not necessarily do what you want, could be chaotic. and 3. The click that 1/4″ audio jacks make when you plug them in, its really nice.So we mixed that all together and came up with a human controlled, physical, musical, chaotic, network. It works like this: We made eight boxes that people wear via a velcro/elastic strap. There are three types of boxes: Music Makers, Mixers, and Speakers, each with a specific function. The Music Makers play one of five sounds from a iPod sound with a iPod attached to them, then send it out over the ‘network’, the Mixers take two signals and send them other places, and the Speakers take signals and make them audible.
Eight people put the boxes on (anywhere they want) and play with the connections between them via audio cables; how they make the connections change the way the five sound tracks are mixed and thus what comes out of the speakers. I know this is unclear, it is confusing, especially for the people playing (they are tangled and covered with cables), but its more fun that way… surprises happen. It was good working in a group for this project. We got our ideas together quickly and were able to produce a lot. In the production of this project I learned something important: electronics are CONFUSING… or at least hacking electronics is confusing. We needed a speaker with an amp, so I had the ‘great’ idea to take some radio alarm clocks apart to get it. It started off fine, until I had to start cutting the circuit board to take it apart. I know, crazy, problems when cutting a circuit board? Who would have thought? Well magic happens. I spent lots-o-time breaking and fixing those alarm clock boards, but it all turned out well and I learned about hacking, yay! I would also like to thank my group members, Thanks guys. |
|
| Assignment three for Softness of Things was to create a ‘connector.’ Physical, conceptual, whatever; like last week’s project, a module, you could create any type of connection you want. I almost immediately got this image of a fluid type of connection. I want to be able to feel/see/hear a fluid movement with electronics. I thought of water, lots of tiny steel balls, mercury… any substance that would move fluidly. That type of kinetic movement seems to be missing from electronics and the digital world-and I want to change that. It probably doesn’t really exist because of the connection problem. Fluids are unpredictable and hard to control/translate into the on/off world of electronics. SO, I decided I would try… eeef!
I initially had grandiose ideas of hundreds of BBs rolling around in a object, turning LEDs on and off as they passed… but that is quite tricky to make a schematic of, and even trickier to fabricate (especially in a week). But I did not give up, instead, I simplified. My hundreds of BBs turned into one larger brass ball, and my X-Y two dimensional plane turned into a one dimensional track. I did however manage to keep the fluid movement around, so in that way I am quite pleased. It works like this: The brass ball rolls back and forth in between two copper tubes (like a train on a track); as it rolls down the ‘track,’ it connects a current to light up different LEDs. All of that (ball, track, switch, battery) is encased in a little wooden box that you can hold in your hand. |
|
