Week 6 - Group, Project Selection and Project Timeline

So our group work started this week meaning that our group will be working on one project for the remainder of the semester. I will be working with Kahlia Lickiewicz and John Nissen.

This project is broken up into three areas (Object, Senario and Behaviour) with each group member taking responsibility for one of the areas. Here is the group member allocations that we have made along with links to each of their blogs so that you can follow the whole groups progress:

Kahlia - Senario: http://letsdesignsomeinteraction.blogspot.com/
Once the senario is established Kahlia will be responsible for ensuring that we are well informed about the environment in which the product will be situated. She will be responsible for making sure that the product that we are designing is remaining true to the senario needs and requirements.

John - Object: http://interactionthroughinteraction.blogspot.com/
John will focus on the technology and manufacturing and how we can physically bring this product onto the market in an efficient and cost effective way. He will ensure that we know which materials, technology, manufacturing methods, transmission methods, and ergonomics factors can be applied to our project.

Myself (Michael) - Behaviour: Here on this blog.

I will be focussing on the behavious of the product and how we can design the behaviour of the product to influence or assist the behaviour of the user. Although each area (Senario, Object and Behaviour) are interconnected, the behaviour provides the link between the object and the senario in a tangible sense. I will be looking at how the mechanism works in relation to the behavioural interaction that we are designing and how we can use the technology that we have available to bring about the product's tangible interaction.

This week we also selected the project that we all would like to continue on with for the rest of the semester. The decision was made to continue on with the "Burning the candle at both ends" project. The original video demonstration of the interaction can be found here:

Week 5 - Concept Presentation: Burning the Candle at Both Ends...

 

and the original narrative can be found here:

  Week 4 - Story Boards: Burning the Candle at Both Ends

 

After selecting the project we collated a timeline for the rest of the semester based on the deliverables required. The following is a breakdown of the remaining weeks right up until the final presentation in week 13.

The blue time slots show us where we need to be developing a particular deliverable while the orange timeslots show us important but slightly flexible deadlines and the red timeslots are deadlines that must be met in order for us to complete the project on time. Key dates include the design freeze in week 9, finalisation of the design details and presentation parts in week 11 for the final presentation in week 13.

This will help us progress toward successful completion in week 12 and presentation in week 13. 

Week 5 - Candle alternatives

I was thinking about how we might be able to ignite and extinguish the candle remotely and amd thinking about alternatives to the candle that still involve a realy flame.

Can we use a double ended citronella or kerosene lamp instead so that as the fuel is burnt from each side it gets slightly lighter?

Need to test:

• the burn rate of both of these fuels withing a lamp? (Weight reduction?)
• if fuel will run drip from the unused end? (Very likely)

This may not be feasible but will be interesting to explore.

It would also be interesting to explore how a multi-ended (Circular array of candles) candle/set-up would respond?

Week 5 - Concept Presentation: Burning the Candle at Both Ends...

Using the story board as an outline I've filmed and editted a presentation video that now explains the interaction between two people.

In this video we had to simulate the remote ignition and extinguishing of the candles but it gives you a good idea of the interaction process and how it might feel to be involved with it. 

So as you can see there are still a number of complex issues to resolve when it comes to the mechanism however the tangible nature of the candle and how it responds to being lit at both ends has a very elegant feel to it. 

Week 4 - Story Boards: Burning the Candle at Both Ends

Having settled on the "Burning the Candle at Both Ends" interaction I've developed a story board to explain the tangible interaction process. This will also be the basis for the presentation video that we will be filming this afternoon. 

The tangible interaction is between two users, each having the same candle. The candle is a long thin candle that is balanced over a pivot point similar to my test model (click here and scroll down to the third video). The interaction begins with the candles having been syncronised over the internet ready for use.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 
As mentioned in previous posts this tangible interaction has a number of implications. 

Not only will the two users be able to see if the other person is working but the length of the candle burnt also reflects the amount of time that each person has been working.

This is turning out to be quite an interesting form of tangible interaction. 

Week 4 - Initial Concept for Development: Burning The Candle At Both Ends

As part of the interaction a candle will need to burn at both ends so I've been looking into the practicalities of doing this.

One of the major questions that I have is "How will a candle burn if it is placed horizontally?". So I looked into it and found this demonstration video. The results are a bit concerning...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzA0sABkCaI

Unfortunately this video shows that the horizontal candle burns twice as fast. This however could avoided through different shaped candles?

Another interesting find!

Then I came across this video which sparked my imagination. A candle naturally rocks when both ends are lit!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u7OwGkWqrk

So I tried it myself...

It works!!! This has a number of positive impications for the tangible interaction that I've been contemplating! Here is a basic representation of how the information would be communicated.

Examples of information that could be communicated through a candle that can rotate on a pivot.

I will develop this further for the Tangible Interaction Presentation on Tuesday...

Week 4 - Tangible Interaction Concept Development

Since I last posted I've looked more closely at the Long Distance Relationship Candle from task 2 last week (click here for more details) and have come up with a different senario. While brainstorming I remembered the burning the candle at both ends analogy. 

This puts the project in a late night study or work context which makes it quite interesting. It would be used as an indicator that would show that a friend is or isn't up late working. This could encourage them to continue to work or to go to bed. It would be syncronised over the internet and would need a remote candle ignition mechanism. 

Things to consider:

• How would an auto-ignition system work?
• How does a candle burn when it is placed horizontally? Different shapes may need to be considered. (click here for demonstration video)
• How the candles could be replaced?
• Can the wax be recycled?
• What type of stand would be required?

Week 4 - Concept Bomb via Narrative

Yesterday we applied different ideas for tangible interactions to three different scenarios. These were interactions between friends (task 1), between couples (task 2) and between active competitive mates (task 3). In each task we mapped out how we envisaged the interaction to occur through a story board narrative. They went as follows.

_____________________________________________________________________

Task 1 - Interaction between friends:

The Syncro MP3 Player:

This task allowed me to flesh out one of my previous ideas. The interaction here uses audible interactions that enables the user to respond in a way that stimulates spontanious interactions with friends. Whether this function is integrated into an MP3 player design or is available as an accessory has not yet been established. The narrative starts with the users enabling their MP3 players.

1. The users add their own music with some tracks being the same song.

2. The friends syncronise their MP3 Players via Bluetooth.

3. The friends then go about their usual daily life.

4. Friends may pass eachother in a day and not realise... especially in a University setting.

5. When they come within range of eachother the same song plays on low volume.

6. Friends now know they are near and can start to look for eachother.

7. As the friends get closer to eachother the music gets louder and if they get further away from eachother it gets softer.

8. Friends spot eachother and the MP3 Player has stimulated a spontaneous personal interaction.

This may also assist when friends are meeting at a particular location alerting them to a friends arrival.

______________________________________________________________________

Task 2 - Interaction between couples:

The Long distance relationship candle:

The idea behind this interaction is to provide the romantic atmosphere for couples that are miles apart or have some reason that stops them from being together for a romantic dinner. The narrative starts with the couple sycronising their candles.

1. Partners syncronise their candles over the net or in person.

2. The partners gets ready to sit down for a romantic dinner.

3. One partner lights their own candle.

4. The other partner's candle is automatically lit up.

5. The partners can enjoy a romantic dinner together knowing they both are. (Could be enhanced with a phone call or other interaction media?)

6. When they have finished dinner one of the partners extinguishes their candle and the other partners candle automatically extinguishes.

This interaction also has numerous other applications. I will explore this further later this week.

____________________________________________________________________

Task 3 - Interactions between active competitive business mates:

I came up with a number of interactions however I was having trouble selecting an output so I have brainstormed a few ideas for input information and activities so I can come back to these if I need to.

______________________________________________________________________

 
My thoughts so far:

I'm not entirely happy with these ideas however I have looked more closely at more applications for the Long distance relationship candle. Results of this are to come in my next post. Stay tuned...

Week 3 - Interaction Design & Tangible Interaction Workshop

Today the term Interaction Design was defined further for us as a way of looking at how we can:

• shape everyday life through digital artefacts
• define the behavious associated with a product and user
• focus on the user through the service
• stimulate meaningful relationships with the product or system.

It will be interesting to see how this is achieved through various forms of tangible interactions.

Core to all of this is:

• Defining the product behaviours, and
• defining the users information needs
• How can the various forms of information be brought to the user?

To do this the aim is to use the following model:

The tangible interaction must satisfy both the control input or information needs and the output or sense needs.

________________________________________________________________

Product Hack Workshop

The workshop following helped us start to understand what it means to have a tangible interaction with an object and how that assists the user to communicate non-verbally. We explored the possibilities that our materials had to offer. Here is a selection of the materials and items that we had brought along.

 RC Boat, Syringe, Tubing, Electric toothpick, Balsa, Acrylic strips, Blue Foam Blocks, Swivel Platform, RC Helicopter, nuts bolts screws, Phone Holder

First item to be dismantled was the RC helicopter remote.

 

The remote came apart quite easily and it was suprising to see how little was in there. The parts that interested me were the joysticks so after removing the circuit board I inspected the joystick mechanism.

 

The joystick functioned very differently to what I had imagined. The photos on the left show the gold coloured connections that slide in the oposite direction to the joystick. These connected to the circuit board and depending on the position would tell the helicopter to do different things.

This slide mechanism was far more complicated than I thought it would be...would it be the cheapest?

 

The helicopter itself appeared to have some very usable parts such as a spindle and tail rotor that could initiate rotational movement. Unfortunately we never got round to using them. I'll be keeping these just in case.

Our next victim was the RC Boat (demolished by John).

There were some interesting mechanisms that used magnets to control the rudder via the servo. All very useful for future ideas for control mechanisms to enable different tangible interactions.

On further deconstruction we found that the motor had seized and the universal joint between the motor and the prop shaft had disappeared...what to do???

Well another group had brought in their electric hair trimmer whose batteries had died so after replacing the batteries and fabricating a univeral joint from balsa we had a functioning propellor again. What if the boat spun around the propellor???... just a thought.

To further improve on this advancement we looked at what we could add...obviously a bigger propellor. So was born the amphibious wind powered boat.

After class my thoughts turned to how we could develop these mechanisms into some form of tangible interaction?

Vertical movement via rotation?
Using a mechanism that resembles a helicopter tail rotor on a threaded rod. The object could travel up the rod signifying an online contact.

Spinning that causes imbalance?
If the boat were to rotate around the prop shaft it would most likely knock itself over. Could this be used to signify something? A social interaction?

Bobbing mechanism that Represents thinking/working?

A ball bobbing up and down on a fan could signify that someone is thinking/is in limbo?

_______________________________________________________________

My thoughts so far:

I'm starting to get some interesting ways of providing a tangible interaction through a digitally controlled artefact. I'm very interested in trying to find a way of providing a very simple input and output however I have not yet decided or discovered what that could be. Stay tuned...

Week 2 - LifeTec and Assistive Technology

This week saw us visiting LifeTec. They are an assistive technology consultancy company that provides free information to those requiring new AT around the home. We were exposed to hundreds of ATs that did everything from controlling computers through minute movements of the head through to moving people in and out of bed and up and down flights of stairs. 

I was amazed at the number of assistive products there are available but I was very underwhelmed at the aesthetics and affordability of each and every item. Things that I noticed were that:

• many of the products are well suited to the clinical nature of a hospital but most certainly not the home or even a nursing home
• the majority of assistive chairs, bathroom seating, bedside accessories, wheelchairs, walkers and the like were manufactured from standard white enamel tube sections with plastic of stainless steel fittings all contributing to the clinical feel
• smaller items seemed to be more aesthetically suitable to the home
• items such as tap turners and automated bottle openers appeared better considered but still lack the style and design consideration given to products for the able bodied population

Much of this has to do with funds available for this field but it highlights an enormous flaw in our medical and design industry. 

Having said this there were a number of products and systems that stood out for me during our visit.

First off is the integration of electric wheelchair controls into a computer via bluetooth and infrared connections. This kind of connection has the potential to be integrated into the home with controls to various household devices. What else could be included in this type of connection? Voice controls are available, how about gesture controls via bluetooth and infrared? How would this inform my tangible interaction input/output?

Interesting things to note about seating are issues surrounding getting out of a chair. Many have sloped backs making it more difficult to overcome gravity and to stand up. This is often overcome with bulky electric armchairs that lift the user almost to standing position. These types of chairs are often controlled by remote controls that are mounted on the sides of the chair. What can be done to reduce the number of controls necessary? Could sensors be used to interpret the users intention to stand up removing the need for a remote control?

Around the kitchen and food preparation there are a number of items that have been cleverly designed to assist the user. Items such as the silicone cooking basket that won't get hot and knives that are based on a rocking motion instead of a sawing motion. These and many more are based around great core innovative ideas but appear poorly executed in form and use. If we were to continue our research into assistive technology in this area it would be interesting to collect data on the actual user experience with each of these products. 

Walkers were again very clinical and the standard is again enamelled steel or stainless steel tubing. One innovation that did stand out was present on the Parkinson's Walker. A small device called the "U Step" that provides a laser line infront of the users feet as a visual cue to remind the user to step. Even this sort of small innovation comes at an astronomical cost making the Parkinson's walker worth around $1200!

One other design aspect that I noticed in a height adjustable shower was that the wallmounted height adjustment bar doubles as a grab rail. This presents both positive and negative results. It is a prime example of how assistive technology is coupled with existing designs to provide a product that does not draw attention to itself as a medical device. It also demonstrates how an assistive device could possibly be too hidden to be used in a split second decision. Would someone believe that it was sturdy enough to grab hold of without pulling the shower out of the wall?

We were also told that although Ipads have been incredibly popular with disability assistance there was very little support available for interaction with assistive technologies. The result of this is bulky substandard products that cost far too much. Also a product of the minimal funding provided to this industry.

______________________________________________________________________

My thoughts so far:

Although our brief requires us to stay away from products for those with severe disabilities this trip has given an insight into what needs to be considered when designing our tangible interaction.

_____________________________________________________________________

As a side note: After speaking with one of the O.T.'s from LiifeTec the sensory chair from the last post appears to be an area that has not been considered before. Maybe this has potential for my tangible interaction?