Author: erw341

NOT A MOUSE 

INTERACTIVE CAT ENTERTAINMENT 

Documentation:

Initially used a potentiometer to understand how we can use this input to control the servo motor.  (Micro Servo 9G).  Used the examples then knob to use potentiometer to control the servo.  Then decided on the ultrasonic ranger (after considering other distance sensors) because it has a larger range potential.  Worked with Marcela to write the code using this Ultrasonic ranger to collect information and then send that to the motor to tell it how to move.  Initially had a problem in that the motor was moving in really jerky and sudden movements, rather than a smooth path. Changed the range of the sensor to a smaller scale so that the motor would be able to move in more cohesive strokes. This makes it so that the input numbers rather than skipping from 516 centimeters to 7, go more smoothly from 0 to 100 centimeters. Made prototype out of cardboard and washi tape.  Design will replicate in digital fabrication.  Decided the material should be something lightweight. Worked with Linda the fellow—exceptionally helpful, not only to the creative aspects of our design, but also in technical support.  Discussed potential digitally fabricated elements—decided on the laser cutter because of its speed and the ability to assemble interesting pieces, add cute elements.  Inspired by other projects found in the digital fabrication lab, decided to put everything into a box.  Used the source:  https://makeabox.io to select the dimensions of the box we wanted then added the necessary cut-outs to the box on illustrator.  Found illustrator to be very frustrating and not at all user friendly.  Linda was very supportive to us at this stage as well.  She also encouraged another more complete prototype before moving forward with actually laser cutting the final product. Worked with others in the digital fabrication lab to finish the box design and laser cut.  Exceptionally helpful and positive.  

Initial design & sketch:

Cardboard prototype:

Final product:

REFLECTION:

Context & Significance:

My understanding and approach to this project was definitely influenced by my previous projects and the exploration of interaction thus far.  In my first group project with Interaction Lab, my group discussed and created a prototype for Smart Floors, while focusing on the idea of interactive floors that provided a number of different experiences and functions for the user.  In this project we demonstrated the importance of interaction through first the idea that the object would sense when people are present and then react to the individual and cater a specific experience.  This idea helped to inform my midterm project, Not a Mouse in that initially the device is still, but after sensing a person or animal, a playful and interactive toy begins to move based off the movements being sensed. What is unique and significant about this project is that it demonstrates interaction in very fast and tangible ways.  This proved to be both interesting and fun for users in that Not a Mouse quickly moved and responded to their own motion.  In my opinion, this interactive toy contributes to the development of cat toys that are already created in that it provides an even more entertaining and responsive experience.  What makes this different is that the device continues to move an respond to movements even after the cat has supposedly caught the toy.  This device is of value to kittens and kitten owners in that when plugged in, the device can serve as a fun and interactive activity when no human is home to play with the cat.  To someone who has frequently been frustrated when they get home to a very energetic kitten, this device is useful in that rather than sleeping all day this device can continue to be fun while also wearing the kitten out when no one is home. 

Conception & Design:

In understanding how users were going to interact with the device, we decided to use materials that appealed to the target audience. Because the users are kittens, it makes sense to use something both durable enough to be able to withstand tiny, sharp claws, while also being cute and fun enough to appeal to the owners.  Specific design decisions included making the entire device look like an animal, as we felt this appealed to the audience and made the project more creative overall.  Additionally understanding that users were not going to be particularly gentle with the design or the mechanical components contributed to our decisions to make the entire device more sturdy.  Using the laser cutter was beneficial in that it was fast and very accurate and using wood was not only a nice and natural looking finish, but was also a more economically suitable material choice.  Another option would have been to use something fuzzy to cover the whole of the box to make it even cuter in appearance, however this seemed unnecessary in our final design. 

Fabrication & Production:

User testing proved to be an exceptionally useful portion of our product design and conception.  Watching as humans interacted and played with our funny little animal device was not only very amusing, but also pointed out many key flaws in our design.  Following this testing session, much was pointed out to us as problematic or was not as successful as it could be.   We changed everything from the type of motor we were using, as it was not strong enough, to the design overall, making the moving arm of the toy into a wire tail instead.  These changes were beneficial in that they made the device stronger while also adding more to the design of a little mouse/cat animal. In making the moving toy end a tail I feel we are better staying on theme and purpose with the device concept. These adaptations were effective in that it more clearly conveyed to users what the device is and how it is supposed to be used and interacted with.  This also made the experience more fun and relatable, in that users could understand what was happening and what they are supposed to do when they encounter Not a Mouse.  

Following the submission of our project, I brought the device home for another round of user testing, this time with my two kittens.  This was also a very exciting and educational experience in terms of how we could better design our project to be effective for specifically kittens.  In videos below you can see how the kittens interacted with the toy.  In this section of kitten user testing  I learned that it might be helpful to increase the height of the wire tail, in order to make the fluffy end harder to catch.  While Cleo (the black and white kitten) seemed to be enjoying catching the end and following the path of movement, it might be better to make reaching the end of the tail more challenging overall.  What pleasantly surprised me about this testing session, however, is that Cleo was able to stay entertained for quite some time even though she could somewhat easily catch the toy.  When she would go leave the end of the toy it would move following her movements, catching her attention again, and she would stay to play longer.  If I were going to further improve Not a Mouse, I would add both more sensors and arms for a larger audience.  It was clear that Pip (the orange kitten) might have been intrigued, although Cleo was stealing all the fun.  

Conclusions:

Ultimately, the goals of this project were to use Arduino to create an interesting and interactive device.  In focusing on creating an experience, rather than an object, our project’s goal was to be a fun and entertaining experience that responded to the movements of the user.  This project aligns with my definition of interaction in that it uses the inputs from the user to provide a new, customized, and entertaining experience. The audience, both humans from user testing and the kittens at home, interacted with the device in positive ways.  Both distinct audiences seemed to be having a good time while also continuing to come back to the device for more fun.  If there were more time to improve this device I would add even more sensors to provide a larger range of movement and to be interesting to more than just one kitten at a time.  In adapting from the various setbacks we encountered, I learned to take the comments and suggestions from users very seriously, as well as be creative in the materials and methods we use to build on the project.  I see this project as an accomplishment because I witnessed much positive feedback from users and feel as if the overall appearance is cute and intriguing, while also providing a compelling interactive experience. What makes this project influential is that it takes something very simple — playing with moving toy (or watching a kitten play with a moving toy) — and puts an interactive and customized spin on it. 

Experimenting with the Kittens:

In making the drawing machine I was presented with a number of new challenges and concerns, while also being fairly familiar with the overall process.  Initially we became aware of the importance of keeping the 5v separate from the 12v.  This proved to be a challenge with knowing the difference between wires and what exactly is connected where.  Additionally, the importance of color coding wires, connecting all to common ground, not common power sources was evident. 

Initially did not need to plug into the 12v to have one, full, smooth rotation complete.  The 5v was enough for movements, but not the most powerful to move the entire drawing machine. 

New code that comes after: int val = analogRead(0);

val = map(val, 0, 1023, 0, 200);

Question 1:

What kind of machines would you be interested in building? Add a reflection about the use of actuators, the digital manipulation of art, and the creative process to your blog post.

I would be interested in using the interactive technology we have discussed to create art works that bring attention to environmental activism.  With the new use of actuators added to what we have learned to build and interact with, I think there are more tangible ways to do this.  In using actuators, specifically the stepper motor, there are better ways to create stronger machines that could do things like take input from a potentiometer that could translate into how we move and organize trash, or even how to make interactive art works that inspire people to be more cognizant of what they are using and how they can reuse more. 

Question 2:

Choose an art installation mentioned in the reading ART + Science NOW, Stephen Wilson (Kinetics chapter). Post your thoughts about it and make a comparison with the work you did during this recitation. How do you think that the artist selected those specific actuators for his project?

One of the artistic pieces that specifically stands out to me in this reading is Andy Gracie’s (hostprods) Fish, Plant, Rock that creates a quasi-symbiotic relationship for plants, animals, and robots.  What inspires me about this instillation are the ways in which it incorporates animals and plants into the chain of human and machine interaction.  Although the concepts of this piece are wildly different form the ones we built for the drawing machine, actuators would still certainly have to be used in the creation of the robots and designing how they interact with other living things in the piece.  Selecting these actuators would difficult in that they would have to be able to interact alongside water and other challenging elements in order to carry out the way in which robots would take care of these plants.  This is very different to what we created because the actuators needed to be strong enough to handle the use of a pen, but not necessarily withstand any other more complex elements.  What links the concepts, however, is still the idea that motors are used to do things that humans can do, but can also find new and innovative solutions for doing them other ways. 

As I have come to understand ‘interaction’ over the past several weeks in this class, I would define the term as when two or more actors are engaged in something and there is some kind of result.  What is challenging about this definition, but also accurate to the term itself, is that this would encompass a very broad understanding of what it means to interact, and thus leave an incredible amount of room for interpretation.  What has been both an inspiration and an obstacle in my experimenting with interaction so far is that because the question of the term is so open ended, it requires me to pin point either a specific problem or an idea that I have already encountered. 

            Interaction, as it was discussed in Crawford’s “The Art of Interactive Design” explained interaction in terms of the various actors that can be involved, as well as bringing into conversation the especially relevant component of creativity and design. To take this idea a step further, Igoe and O’Sullivan’s “Introduction to Physical Computing” begins to help me to assign the terms we have learned in class a more concrete meaning in the world of interaction and design in combination with computers and other technical elements.  In trying to single out specific resources that have solidified my understanding of interaction from the perspective of technology—something with which in the past I have felt dangerously unfamiliar—this explanation of not only the terminology like analog and digital, but also the in-depth descriptions of the tools that we use each day in class, has been particularly helpful. Additionally, Tom Igoe’s “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” was another important read for me as it prepared me for approaching this project from the lens of an artist’s thinking about a performance, rather than a project with a presentation.  This level of engagement with the work in this class, and interactive artworks as a whole, is something that has both surprised me and been very interesting as I continue to learn about interactivity. 

            In my initial research prior to meeting with my group I was interested in combining this newly understood definition of interaction with something that could be both environmentally advantageous and interesting as a standalone project. At times it was exceptionally frustrating to attempt to come up with something that both served a purpose while also responding to human interaction.  As a group, we discussed a few ideas about machines that could transform trash into something else or even a pet for people that live on Mars. However, while these ideas seemed interesting they also felt less interactive in that they do not necessarily respond or act to our initial actions in compelling or new ways. 

            Ultimately, the idea that my group chose to prototype and present is Smart Floors, an interactive and multifunctional device that could be used both in people’s homes and in businesses.  This idea came from a collaborative group discussion that took its roots in the understanding that interaction from a device can present itself in helpful solutions to a problem we may be facing.  I considered that I frequently have the problem that my kitten escapes the enclosure I make for her and I would so appreciate if there were a fix that went above and beyond an ordinary baby gate.  Smart Floors would make it possible to not only keep her safe and where she is supposed to be, but also provide an interactive and entertaining solution.  We then talked about how interactive floors could be beneficial in keeping people from stealing things, and how fun it would be if there was a device that could do more than simply make loud noises when a theft passes through. This incorporates the ideas of interactivity I have previously explained because the device itself senses when someone is stepping on it, and in return creates an illusion of a different setting. 

Sensor experimenting:  Vibration sensor

learning to use and experiment with this sensor was very helpful to my understanding of this class a and how to work with interactive devices overall.  particularly because we were able to use analog inputs to change the outputs of the circuit we made, this exercise was very interesting.  

First we connected the buzzer to ensure that this was working before we started using the sensor.  Then we built the circuit with the intention of touching the sensor and having the buzzer make a sound. We used this websites code to make a small change to the example: 

https://programmingelectronics.com/an-easy-way-to-make-noise-with-arduino-using-tone/

When this was successful right away we decided to further program and alter the code to make the circuit use the input of the sensor to change the tonal sounds of the buzzer.  This was far less intuitive and we did have help, however ultimately it was very successful and interesting to hear the different sounds that could be produced.  

Question 1:

In this recitation we used a vibration sensor and a buzzer.  We created a circuit that sensed the vibrations when you tapped the device and then translated that into the buzzer making a sound.  What made this interesting is that depending on the way in which you touched the sensor the buzzer produced a different range of tonal sounds. 

This could be used in real life if for example we wanted to be able to convey more with our car horns.  Rather than simply hitting the steering wheel and a honk is sounded, it would be cool if the ways in which you hit the horn could convey different sounds that could be associated with different meanings.  This could be helpful for driving safety and improving communication among drivers. 

Question 2:

I think this analogy makes sense because the code is what is used to explain the very most basic instructions from the computer to the Arduino.  Similar to a recipe or tutorial, code is stripped down to the most essential pieces of relevant information to reproduce another outcome.  In the case of experimenting and using code we found online, this very much applies in that we used only a small portion and changed the rest that did not apply to what we were doing.  This is also frequently true in recipes or tutorials.  

Question 3:

Computers influence human behaviors in that considering we now live in a world where it is impossible to separate ourselves from technology, we must constantly interact with this aspect of the world.  In Language of New Media, Manovich gives numerous examples and explanations for the ways in which we are influenced by computers.  What is particularly compelling about this article is the way in which it incorporates a historical  perspective on technological advances and how that has been meaningful to human life.  

Arduino Basics

Circuit 1: Fade

In building this circuit I was rather familiar with the initial process, so it was fairly straight forward as to how to put it together.  The code was also simple, as it was one of the examples.  

Circuit 2: toneMelody

This circuit was also pretty easy to understand and build.  We enjoyed the melody itself.  

Circuit 3: Speed Game

Building this circuit was much more complicated than the first two.  It presented us with many new components, but still was not impossible to put together.  

We definitely had fun playing the game after we built it and learned about how to interact with the devices we have put together on much more engaging levels.  One question that was raised when we played the speed game over and over is, why is there a default of one player always winning even when neither player pushes a button? 

Question 1:

There are countless instances where I am using technology in my daily life.  Considering the circuits we just built, it is now even more clear to me that this level of both interactivity and technology can be combined to do not only exceptionally useful things in our daily lives, but also propose very innovative solutions to problems we may face.  For example, there are so many instances where both fading lights appear on buildings, or small chimes or jingles go off when people interact in some way. In regards to the text, Physical Computing demonstrates the significance of interactivity as it relates to the input and output of the computers.  This directly applies to the circuits we have built.  

Question 2:

The resistor lessens the flow of energy, so the 10k is necessary to ensure that there is not too much energy going directly to the push button.  

Question 3:

I would make a giant instillation art display with many different shades of green LEDs to create a plant looking design going on the side of some significant building somewhere.  I would especially like if I could somehow also incorporate real live plants into this display for an environmentally friendly effort.  Also a renewable energy source to light up the LEDs, as the goal is to conserve energy and resources overall.