5.1. Objectives

The primary objective is to inspire wonder and delight through the magic of embedded computing. Some ideas for possible forms which projects might take:

  1. An artifact which visitors handle, manipulate, or wear.
  2. A fixed installation or wall-mounted system, either intended for direct contact or remote interaction.
  3. An unobtrusive environmental intervention which creates responsivity in a space.
  4. A system of components related to making or building which visitors use to create or explore.
  5. An everyday artifact which children might use in their daily lives.

Our goal at each stage is to produce a working proof-of-concept device, not necessarily a museum-ready experience: there are many problems related to engineering for public use which will lead you far astray from the scope and intent of this course. Children in particular are notoriously rough on installations. That said, actual hands-on testing will be more successful if attention is paid to robust construction.

These are intended to be research and exploration projects: the whole point is to learn something new, and no one is paying you for the result. Reasonable ambition is encouraged, so we’d like you to try new things, and failure is part of the process. However, we will attempt to guide you away from directions which we think are unlikely to succeed or require unreasonable levels of effort. But you are the ultimate arbiter of this: we won’t outright say no because we want you to learn to assess your own ambitions and skills and don’t want to stand in your way.

A guiding principle of the course is that all ideas can be rendered at all scales. Even if your idea is grand, there is certainly a core abstraction where the essential questions can be tested with simple prototypes.

5.1.1. Studying the Problem

We will need to become familiar with the vocabulary, approach, and constraints of the Museum. We will also need to become familiar with the opportunities and problems presented by making artifacts to engage with humans ranging from four-year old children to adults.

There are several activities which will help everyone become familiar with the context:

  1. Group site visit. The class will make an observation visit to the Museum to explore the spaces and observe interactions in detail.
  2. Children’s School visit. The class will make in-class trip to observe a four-year old classroom in the on-campus Children’s School in Margaret Morrison Hall. This does not reflect the museum context, but will provide insight in the cognitive level of a key target audience.
  3. On-site prototype ‘playtesting’. The first phase will culminate in a on-site test at the Museum.
  4. On-site final demo. The second phase will culminate in a on-site test at the Museum.

5.1.2. Metrics of Success

A key element of the discussion process will be identifying metrics for evaluating the success of each project stage. Quantitative metrics can be difficult, and sometimes the only practical measure is observing the length and frequency of visitor engagement, but it is important to identify other potential measures and even build measurement into projects as feasible.

Qualitative metrics will help establish the framework for critique. These may come from the discourse of art, design, and product engineering, but we will also look for qualitative metrics from museum practice.

5.1.3. Project Phase 1: Embodying Wonder

Objective: focus on creating a moment of delight.

The idea is really to build a machine which creates happiness. This can come from any number of things: a moment of delicious surprise, amusement, something sensory and stimulating, something memorable or mysterious, perhaps something social or loving, something comforting or chaotic.

This objective is quite open-ended, and perhaps one of the best ways to approach it is to remember: what gave you delight as a child? What was a secret fascination? What did you not understand until much later? It might be quite mundane. It doesn’t need to be universal; you may have a mystery which is particularly appealing to some but glossed over by others.

The central question we are trying to answer in the course is how the secret sauce of computation can be embedded into ordinary behaviors to modify them. There is a central tension between this and the goal of transparency; computation is an essentially invisible process, a black box. But we see what it does, so the role of computation can be elucidated by focusing on behavior. So it is true that the sensory stimulation of inanimate objects and characters can be quite delightful, but we are specifically focused on the kind of delight which comes from how these objects or characters act.

My young son has a stuffed jaguar which is an object of comfort; surely it brings delight. But what could we add which would subtly enhance the sense of cozy familiarity? It could be animation, like gently purring at night. Or perhaps more indirect, like emitting a subtle but familiar scent when held.

Don’t be afraid to keep it simple; making the right connection between cause and effect in a clear and empowering way can be very delightful.

Requirements

  1. The project should include some element of computation where information about the world is transformed into action through logic or time. It doesn’t need to be much. It can have as few as one input and one output in any modality.
  2. The project must actually work; this is not just a occasion to test mockups or non-functional prototypes in the space. So please identify the minimum viable product which can produce a moment of delight and focus your efforts on achieving that functionality first.
  3. Please read Project Proposals for details of the proposal. Specific prompt questions for the final report will come later.
  4. Each project will receive an allocation of the course budget, to be spent on either specific items or general prototyping materials. Please plan expenditures and request orders well in advance of your needs.
  5. It would be best to stick with a level of mechanical fabrication at the level of the laser-cutter for rapid iteration, and we can help you design for flat parts. But this is not required; if you have access to other fabrication resources no method is out of scope.
  6. Even if the final version might be battery-powered and self-contained, the first version should stick with a tether and a lab supply.
  7. It would be best to avoid needing a laptop attached, so the use of computer vision, network access, large data sets, etc. is discouraged (but not disallowed).

5.1.4. Project Phase 2: Expanding Engagement

Objectives: expand upon the preliminary result to increase engagement, enable simultaneous interaction with multiple visitors, extend the audience to a wider range, or improve compatibility with the museum context.

The key to the second phase is the addition of significant new capability which extends the first result; it is not simply enough to fix the problems identified in the first prototype test.

The specifics will depend upon the project details and will be negotiated at the start of the second phase. Some example objectives include:

  1. Go beyond creating delight for one visitor to engaging both children and parents. Can the project create a dialogue among visitors?
  2. Follow through on the initial appeal with a more extended interaction. What was the feature which captured delight at first sight? Can it lead to a process of discovery? What additional intrigue can be revealed through sustained engagement?
  3. Can the project follow the autonomy/initiative/industry progression by letting an affordance for independence develop into a decision opportunity leading to a concrete, tangible outcome?
  4. Can the project move from a site-specific form to a more universal outcome?

5.1.5. Milestones per Phase

  1. Pair selection. We prefer that students work in pairs. It is often a good idea to find a partner with complementary skills so you can teach each other. Solo workers and groups of three will need to make a pitch for an exception. Groups of four are too large for this project.
  2. Proposal. See Project Proposals for specifics. Ideas are cheap; it is in the exploration that the interesting work begins. We recommend a strategy of committing to a general idea early and then thinking through as many details as possible at the drawing and planning stage. We find this is much more efficient that jumping into building too soon.
  3. Proof-of-concept. This is an in-class demonstration. Nearly every proposal plan leads to a set of key questions which form the primary hurdles. We recommend a strategy of choosing a quick experiment to tackle the most difficult part first. Either the unknowns will resolve into a feasible development plan or you can fail fast on one approach and revert to another. Either way, you won’t have wasted effort on secondary development which becomes obviated by a problem. The proof of concept will usually be a partial prototype, and in many cases it can be modified into a full prototype if successful.
  4. On-site test. We will have two opportunities to deploy a working prototype at the museum, observe visitor interactions, and document the results. A successful live test requires careful preparation, e.g., finishing and testing in advance in the comfort of the lab to minimize last-minute fixes on site without the same tools.
  5. Presentation and in-class review. An important learning goal of the course is clear and efficient communication between disciplines, and the review critiques provide an opportunity to hone your skills. Ideally, your project will be functional and you can perhaps give a live demonstration and succinct explanation. If your project has failed, then please explain why and how it failed and whether there is a general lesson to be learned. Our critiques will consider the relative difficulty of the attempt. Ambitious project ideas frequently do not work out as expected but can still be reframed to expose an alternative interpretation as well as explain the hidden traps of the original idea.
  6. Report. See Final Project Reports. For all of our projects, the documentation is the most tangible and durable work product. It is also an important stage for reviewing and reflecting on the process and outcome. The same considerations about success and failure outlined above also apply to the written documentation.