M2 presentation

Presentation day, I feel like somehow we (students of the class) come to same type of insights or pretty similar insights at least. Maybe it’s not so unusual since we have the same base knowledge and limitations. That’s why I really take into consideration the feedback the other group gets because there is always something to learn from others. The feedback we get from the teachers are often directed towards developing our approach and critical design thinking which I like, it isn’t overly detailed or picky which has both good and bad sides but hey, that is the format of this particular show and tell. If i were to summarize the feedback from the whole session there seems to be a recurring criticisms about finding the behaviour and implementing it to the design in a meaningful and expressive way. Like in previous module the groups that put an effort into the presentation and communicating the idea got the most out of the feedback.

Something that got me thinking was a feedback Clint gave some other group about how heartbeat is represented in their project and that it might be a bit obvious to slap human-like way of acting or being into a physical object. The question is how natural occurring phenomenons can be represented as alive. When we are out in the nature and see the trees moving, the river flowing and so on, we get a notion of that we see and feel that the environment and its subparts are alive. That goes to show that each entity has it own way of being alive and expressing its state to the surrounding. In relation to my sketch it could be applied to as well. I tried my utmost to make the LED convey and mimic a human emotion without really thinking or investigating what how it “naturally” could communicate it being scared. Now maybe being scared is a bit of stretch for a LED but maybe other states like displaying that it is alive or in idle state? The possibilities could be many but I feel that they have to make sense in relation to the object.

Some final thoughts and reflections of this module is:

• Working with the bare minimum and scaled down specification was useful exercise and approach. Normally when doing projects in school we have a lot of options and resources. This limitation of only using a simple LED provided both a challenge and an ideation and thorough breakdown of the core elements of the component. Which I believe is useful since we can get spoiled sometimes without really appreciate the material or use it to its full extent.
• Constraints is tool I will take with me. As to keep growing my knowledge and efficiency I’m constantly out for tools, approaches and methods that can enhance my design work. Constraints on an already scaled down component was an interesting combination. Constraints surely will yield higher efficiency with more complex components and settings.
• The WHY’s and HOW’s are still very efficient and relevant words to carry. It makes sense to have a well crafted argument to why and how the artifact makes sense in its function and what kind of intrinsic/extrinsic value it upholds. That’s how the world spins around, things that don’t present any value get discarded.
• Programming can newer be discarded as useless skill. I was happy that we used an arduino to create the sketches as I knew there would be a lot of examples on the web and help to find. Unlike the first module this was a bit easier to do practically but also got me thinking that programming skills are more a less a mandatory skill to have when doing prototypes. As a person that strays away from coding, the arduino and other tools that make coding easier and faster is a blessing.
• Sensors and resolution are still an deciding factor to how well the project is going to work. This prototype didn’t call for specific and fine detailed movement but still there was some issues in getting the the right sensor or (should I say) resolution for the interaction.