[EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention this earlier. If you could, please, post your comments in new posts in this category instead of posting a comment to this post. ]
tl;dr: Update your profile on the class blog by noon Thursday, post feedback on the reading assignments.
Review Tom Igoe’s page that we looked at in class. Any changes you would make? http://www.tigoe.com/blog/category/physicalcomputing/176/
Read the short story mailed to you tonight.
Ask yourself what skills you have in addition to the pre-reqs:
- performance skills: music, drama, improv
- work with disability
- linux shell
- javascript / p5.js
- CAD software
- digital fabrication – laser cutters, 3d printers, mills
- game theory
1. Tom Igoe – Igoe seems to have most of the trends covered, the only thing I could potentially see being added would just be adding any artifact to the “Internet of Things”. People have fallen in love with making things “smart” and it seems like they are willing to try it with anything and everything, which to me, seems like a bit of a fruitless venture that does not offer very high ROI in terms of helping people solve real problems. I’m sure there are still “smart” artifacts that have not been made “smart” yet and people have to push the envelope to get to those, but the concept has come up a lot in recent memory. I also think that there is some overlap in some of the concepts that Igoe mentions that have also been a major part of the interactive art installation trend that has emerged. Groups like teamlab (https://www.teamlab.art/) and Artechouse (https://www.dc.artechouse.com/) have been designing and showcasing interactive experiences using physical and digital sensors that play with and affect different visual displays (*couch* LED fetishism), soundscapes and visual components. I think there will continue to be a trend to use physical computing for art’s own sake compared to having a function.
2. I feel like Banks’ thoughts on the man and and his “smart” space-suit illustrate the achievements and dangers of great design. On the more obvious end of the good stuff, the suit is able to care for and assist the man who is slowly being burdened by sickness, malnutrition and injuries, carrying him farther than he could have ever carried himself. I have always learned that good design is good design because a user doesn’t even realize it is there. Deeper than when people talk about their phones being an extension of themselves, the space-suit becomes intrinsically tied to the man’s being. By the end of the story, the lines have blurred to the point where neither “being” knows where one starts and the other begins. In some ways, that is great design in that it allows the “artifact” to best be used/know how to help the user. On the other hand, that is one of the pitfalls of great design in that sometimes the “artifact” may not give the user the space to be a user, instead forcing him or her to rely on it so much to where they lose their own sentience at the artifact’s expense. The story itself seemed to be cautionary tale for designers, to balance the role of the user and the artifact and the relationship between the two.
3. Not sure if this was supposed to be part of the blog post, but just to cover my bases… In addition to the pre-reqs, I have done a semester of improv, I have worked with designers to make accessible museum exhibits and experiences, I took an Intro to EE class in undergrads about microcontrollers, my Senior Design Project was a thermal energy control system run by Arduinos, I know SolidWorks and CREO and Maya, and I’ve laser cut and 3D printed and milled and used most woodshop tools you can think of.
Hi,
Please make this a new post in the Assignments 1 category.
thx