Demo 4: Kinetic Plaything

The fourth demo emphasizes interactivity: we will take these prototypes to the Children’s School for hands-on testing. But we would also like to create the potential for children to explore and investigate, so we want to allow for open-ended outcomes. Building from the previous demos, we would like to create implicit interactivity by making machines with rich behavior that also allow for experimentation, tactile interaction, and reconfiguration. Direct user interfaces are not disallowed, but please recognize that the children will be more engaged by discovering their own surprising results than simply learning to operate a device.

Objectives

  1. Work with a partner to develop a hands-on kinetic device for children to see and touch.

  2. Create scripted and reactive behaviors which produce autonomous performances but also respond to changes of environment and other external stimuli.

  3. Create a visual narrative through behavior and form.

  4. Observe children as test users discovering a new experience through a kinetic machine.

Approaches

  1. This assignment is more open-ended that any so far, but the previous demo prompts have been intended to lead toward this stage and should suggest a proper scope. I.e., there is no need to dramatically increase complexity; a simple, reliable machine with some open-ended possibilities can be successful.

  2. Play is learning, learning is play: this doesn’t need to be a toy or a game, it can be a curiosity, a performance, a personality.

  3. Simpler is better.

  4. Rhythm, music, and time provide a strong premise.

  5. Deception is delightful. Creating a surprise or discovering a hidden secret can be a strong premise.

Technical Considerations

  1. Please keep your goals simple and commensurate with your skills. But please also help teach your partner skills if you are more experienced.

  2. You are limited to the interfaces available on the CKS-1 Arduino Uno Shield. Please, no solderless breadboards, and no extravagant actuator requirements. But please note the board has SPI and I2C capacity plus available GPIO, so there are many extended ways to use it.

  3. Our options for human interaction include switches, sonar, accelerometer, light, radar, or capacitance sensing (in increasing order of difficulty). In all cases, it is important that the sensing process evoke the semiotics of touch instead of user input. That is, the form should invite human gesture rather than data entry.

  4. Some combination of scripted and reactive behavior will likely be needed. This will emerge from the combination of hardware and software.

  5. You are strongly encouraged to apply low-latency event-loop programming style and to develop reusable behavior primitives. These will make it easier to express open-ended outcomes in software.

  6. Battery operation creates a lot of headaches; please think in terms of tethered machines as much as possible. Tabletop machines are strongly suggested.

  7. Aesthetics matter, but a little goes a long way; form can be representational, and fit and finish can be rough, yet still suggest an evocative narrative.

Deliverables

This time the deliverables are scheduled over several due dates.

  1. In-class prototype review and hardware critique. Please have working hardware, even if not final.

  2. In-class qualification test. Please have a fully working hardware demo.

  3. Live testing at Children’s School.

  4. Documentation, after the live testing. As usual, a brief blog entry including:

    • A brief video clip of the mechanism in action.

    • SolidWorks files as an attachment.

    • Arduino code.

    • A brief paragraph reporting on characteristic reactions of the children. What did you learn about your device by seeing it through their eyes?