Author: nlh278

For my final project I wrote a code that allows you to interact with the Game of Thrones world firsthand as Robb Stark of Winterfell.  Overall, I really enjoyed making this project despite the tediousness of preparing all 113 slides that appear as options throughout the story.

Overall the main problems I faced in my project was not necessarily the code but the tediousness of designing all of the background pics.  Furthermore I messed up in not procuring more advanced buttons beforehand which would have allowed me to do a way more beautiful and interactive method of game play.  However, in the end I am fairly satisfied with the result.

Over the course of the semester we have primary focused on utilizing interaction to create visually aesthetic and artistic projects that incorporate modern technological advances.  While many demonstrations of interaction using contemporary technology fall under the umbrella term of “art”, others serve utilitarian purposes.  With my definition of interaction being, “any form of bilateral communication using physical, verbal, or audible methods”, it is not inconceivable that a wide array of projects with varying amounts of practicability exist under these conditions.  Serving as an inspiration for my own personal definition of interaction is Crawford’s “The Art of Interactive Design” where he categorizes interactivity as “a conversation: a
cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.”   

My project will incorporate this definition of interaction by providing a means for a personal input and an atomized output.  I will prepare an interactive story in which players will take the reins of King of The North Robb Stark of Winterfell (Game of Thrones reference) as he makes crucial decisions to win the War of Five Kings.  There will be four buttons attached to an arduino; each button will represent a specific choice the player can make in each scene.  The first scene will present the initial situation listing four courses of action the player can take.  The story will then continue depending on the choice made by the player providing another unique situation where another decision may or may not be made (Some decisions may lead to elimination).  

Many of the projects we have looked at throughout the semester include sensory elements which then serve to alter a projected image.  However, this is not necessary in order to demonstrate interaction and it can lead to, in my opinion, a very repetitive and stagnant experience that looses its awe after a short time.  While my project will not use advanced sensory technology to further the goal of interaction, the input output method of communication as well as the varying results depending on personal choice constitutes a fun and unique version of interaction.

I will start by using Programming to prepare the interactive story itself and link it to the arduino as to read the responses from the buttons.  The primary challenge will just be the tedious and repetitive nature of having so many if and for statements within the code to transition between different parts of the story.  I can imagine that it will become very long and arduous to read and surf through to find mistakes I may make.  Overall though, I think it is a doable and fun project with the potential to create an engaging, interactive story.

This week we went more in depth concerning for statements and animation in processing.  However, what sets this weeks recitation apart from the previous one is the focus on interaction clearly present in the mouse pressed statements.  I coded two ellipses; one larger stationary, and another smaller that would react to mouse pressed.  The idea behind it was sort of an orbital pattern I wanted to recreate.

In my opinion the two most interesting functions that were learned this week are the for function and the mouse pressed function.  I believe the for function has a wide range of potential applicability to a project that I would like to capitalize on in the future.

For our midterm project Isaac and I decided to construct a “pooping baby”.  We did not take much inspiration from the group research project as our product for that was too far fetched to give us any rational ideas.  Originally, we had wanted to do some form of interactive car that moved in reaction to its environment.  Specifically, we wanted to build a motorized cat toy that would react as the cat played with it.  However, as time progressed we realized the feasibility of the project to be lacking as we would have make multiple motors work to drive around a car with an arduino and wiring hidden away on the inside but with sensors on the outside.  We concluded that it would be simpler and more reasonable to do a baby that ate and pooped using servos.

We began our project by building a body for our creation, we settled on using the skeletal frame of a RC car as the primary support and used cardboard to produce an exterior.  We then attached cardboard to a servo to replicate a mouth that would be in a perpetual chewing like motion.

The code itself was fairly simple but our next major problem became the sensor.  We had intended to use a pressure sensor, putting it on the inside and triggering the pooping mechanism when “food” landed on it.  However, we found out that the sensor was not sensitive enough to pick up the food landing on it so we then considered an infrared or motion sensor.  In the end though we concluded to move the pressure sensor to the outside of the project and have it be manually triggered by squeezing its lollipop. 

After some final decorations we had a working, pooping alien looking baby.  In our user testing we were encouraged to use a different form of food and add clarification as to how exactly to make the baby poop. We decided it to be impractical to change what food we used but we did print a sign clarifying somewhat on how to use the baby.

In conclusion, this project coincides with my definition of interaction in that it requires some form of communication or involvement on behalf of the user.  The point of the baby is not to simply look at but to feed it, and make it book.  Due to it requiring human input to exert a reaction I would consider it interactive.  This project helped expand my knowledge in the laser cutting as well as with coding and circuit construction. But in my opinion the most interesting was the design and giving the trash baby it’s appeal.

For this recitation we constructed a circuit that allowed us to control a stepper motor by using a potentiometer.  After building an individual circuit I combined one circuit with Dom’s to create a drawing machine controlled by two people with potentiometers.  

I had little trouble as I assembled the circuit to resemble the diagram given.  However coding became an issue as I was unable to get the stepper motor to reach to the potentiometer.

I was able to finally fix the problem by incorporating the map function which finally got it to work.  When combined with Dom’s circuit we had a functional drawing machine.

Recitation Questions:

I would be interested in building machines that serve utility functions rather than pure aesthetic.  For example I believe the robots and machine in place on automotive assembly lines serve a more important role in society than some of the art projects reviewed.  I would be most interested in constructing a machine that serves a purpose whether it be complicated or simple.

One of the projects mentioned in Stephan William’s article was a fish tank that was mechanically adjusted to automatically handle the many aspects required to support marine life.  The machine had sensors allowing for it to adjust factors such as water temperature and food supply to accommodate the fish.  I think that this project demonstrates a pragmatic solution to a simple problem much like the machine we build for this week.