Fin #3 – BOM, timeline and a system diagram.

After flipping in my mind the game and the controller and then the game again – I understood that if my core value is ‘Zero frustration, maximum magic’ and that the player can never go wrong, the interaction should be simple.

I put on my hat, gloves, and coat – and walked toward MAD museum for the sonic arcade exhibition. the concept is simple: touch-sensitive surfaces with light and sound feedback that creates a mini playground for adults.

In order to keep:
1. Zero frustration
2. Instant feedback
3. The lentils tactile

The controller will measure the player left and right movements using two ultrasonic sensors in the bottom left and right of the box. the character will move according to the particles moving on the top fabric.

Game mechanic: a storyline which progresses on a horizontal line – requiring a left and right movement (much like this beautiful example).

The LED strip will provide the player hints and a sense of connection to the projection.

The finalists:

And as the old saying goes: The next controller will be better 🙃

– H.

Fin #1

In one sentence:
I wish to build a b&w (and yellow) mission game, controlled by a sandbox filled with small particles.

1. How does the sandbox control the game technically?
2. What is the mission apart from the simple command “PLEASE PUT IT BACK”?
3. Where do I start? I need to plan the game in such a way that I can manage to build it eventually (I’m a slow code writer).

It will be beautiful.

Draw a face

This week I’ve learned the most basic and therefore important lesson in Pcomp – I should learn how to plan in advance.

I started with a wish to run a dynamo using a motor, after a day of learning how to run a motor / Plan gears / Laser cutting / Using a battery – turned out the motor was weaker than needed in order to spin the dynamo. With my affection to illustration and a bit sense of humor – I built the ‘Draw a face!’ Simple, yet working.

Must say,
I am beginning to develop a fondness for the profession.

Digital & Analog

// First of all – A thousand thanks to Aaron Parsekian.

 I have shown the NYSCI connected world installation video many times to many people in an attempt to explain the connection between Design – Technology – Education. Therefore, when I had the chance to see the installation this week at the maker faire I was quite excited.

After five minutes in the installation, I must admit – I was a bit disappointed. In the car on the way back we tried to analyze how can we use the term “disappointment” for something so remarkable? 

We came to two conclusions. First – The installation required a preliminary explanation, which makes the thrill of discovery fades before it even began. Second – and I think most important – the feedback wasn’t satisfying. The set, colors, size, dynamic animation – all create a positive anticipation. And rightly so, this technology is still new and intriguing. But even after one managed to perform the right movements, the visual feedback just wasn’t enough. I walked around to listen to other people reactions and it all sounded the same.

The loop which captures a user in a game (I believe game mechanics should be used in many interactions in our every-day life) is the Action – Reaction one. Once the reaction doesn’t fit or rise above the effort the action required, the interaction becomes frustrating, boring, or in this case – disappointing.

⚡️ Digital & Analog Lab

🌻  🌻  🌻  🌻  Analog Sunflower  🌻  🌻  🌻  🌻


What is interaction?

1 // how would you define physical interaction? What makes for good physical interaction? Are there works from others that you would say are good examples of digital technology that are not interactive?

What’s common to both Crawford’s definition and Victor’s rant is the demand from the audience to play an active role and from the digital creation to use human physical possibilities and senses in their fullness.

perhaps the physical interaction definition lies in the positive tension between the creation and the audience – while stretching those flexible boundaries to a point where it’s not clear who nurture whom.

The first thing that came to mind when I read the question was Inbal pinto and avshalom pollak dance company which makes an inspiring use of digital and physical technology in their shows (It is likely I was still influenced by Crawford’s saying:”Just how much time does an actor have to listen to the audience, consider its mood, and modify his performance to better satisfy the audience?”). He has a point. although Pinto & Pollak are an advanced and virtuoso dance company, the performance stays within the stage boundaries – the content therein is packed, closed, and ready to serve once the audience arrives and the lights go out. And therefore – not interactive. 🐊