Sara Taylor's NMD 342 Blog

Last Thursday, Nimesha introduced us to his work and his values as a designer. He showed us his virtual cocktail and his device to include more sensory information with VR. He told us that the concept holds more value and slowly working to achieve our long term goals holds more value over getting projects done.  While I do not disagree with this, I did not originally have a long term goal in mind for this project anyway. Nimesha suggested that I use my companion robot idea and turn it into a companion that can imitate those who are lost, like pets or grandparents. I don't really...morally agree with this idea? I think death is a thing that shouldn't be tampered with, and bringing dead loved ones back to life with a robot seems a little too intense and crosses some natural boundaries. Today, the 16th, Nimesha didn't have an actual plan for us to go over. He seemed more interested in other students that happened to be in the hackerspace that was working on other projects...

The device in question: Card scanner at dining hall (Hilltop) Assumption: The card scanner is a touch scanner. One will touch the card and wait for the signal to beep, and then wait for the person at the computer to clear the person's identity. Subject 1: The person tapped their card vertically, covering the scanner entirely. The device beeps and shows a green light. After a brief pause, the computer person allows them to pass. Subject 2: This person slid their card across the scanner and kept walking. No beep sounded, and so the person operating the computer had to call the person back. Subject 3: This person tapped their card horizontally against the card scanner. A beep sounded and there was a pause until the computer person allowed them to pass. Subject 4: This person tapped their card multiple times and it did not work. The computer operator swiped their card at the computer, and then the card worked. Subject 5: This person tapped their card vertically, and jiggled...

When Sofian came to visit us for three classes, we first spent two classes learning how to use his object-oriented Arduino language called Plaquette. It worked very similarly to processing, so it was an overall enjoyable process to use. We were assigned to create an interactive LED experience that simulated a particular emotion. The emotion my group was assigned was "Horny". I wouldn't really define that as an emotion, more of a physical state, however, we pursued. A member of our group went above and beyond, so I quickly discarded my button and flash project. In the end, our group had a smiling face that could simulate all sorts of emotions. We used the ultrasonic sensor in creating an interactive experience. If one moved closer to the face, the face would smirk and wink. If you were too far, the face would frown. After that, we had a discussion about the pros and cons of replicating emotion through technology. On the one hand, these sorts of tools could be very helpfu...

Just in my dorm alone, I was able to find an example of good design, and one example of bad design. The Good: This sink is wonderful.  It does its job well in the categories the author of the design of everyday things states. It has the affordance that it is a device a human can use to retrieve water/liquid because it has a spout by turning the handles which are molded to replicate human grip. It signifies that one may use hot or cold water because the hot handle is red and the cold handle is blue. The mapping is simple to understand, as the handles prevent you from turning them the wrong way naturally, and there are only two handles to turn, so one is mapped to hot, the other cold. The feedback is ingrained in the device, you know you've turned the handle correctly when water is flowing, and you can feel the temperature change with various handle turns by putting your hand in the water. Feedback is immediate and doesn't annoy you with flashing lights or sounds. The...

Page where notes about class are to be shared.