Author: Skyler Liu

Exercise 1: Sketch

Diagram:

Video:

Code: 

Processing:

import processing.serial.*;

String myString = null;
Serial myPort;

int NUM_OF_VALUES = 2;
int[] sensorValues;

void setup() {
size(500, 500);
background(0);
setupSerial();
}

void draw() {
updateSerial();
printArray(sensorValues);
fill(sensorValues[0], sensorValues[1], 20);
ellipse(sensorValues[0], sensorValues[1], 20, 20);
}

void setupSerial() {
printArray(Serial.list());
myPort = new Serial(this, Serial.list()[ 1 ], 9600);

myPort.clear();
myString = myPort.readStringUntil( 10 );
myString = null;

sensorValues = new int[NUM_OF_VALUES];
}

void updateSerial() {
while (myPort.available() > 0) {
myString = myPort.readStringUntil( 10 );
if (myString != null) {
String[] serialInArray = split(trim(myString), “,”);
if (serialInArray.length == NUM_OF_VALUES) {
for (int i=0; i<serialInArray.length; i++) {
sensorValues[i] = int(serialInArray[i]);
}
}
}
}
}

Arduino:

void setup() {
Serial.begin(9600);
}

void loop() {
int sensorValue = analogRead(A0)/ 4;
int sensorValue2 = analogRead(A1)/ 4;

Serial.print(sensorValue);
Serial.println(“,”);
Serial.print(sensorValue2);
Serial.println();

delay(10);
}

Process: I started this exercise from the circuit. At first, I kind of forgot which legs of the potentiometers should be connected with which pin on the Arduino, so I sought help from my deskmate and soon solved this question. Then I began to work on the code part based on the sample code. It was not hard to find out which parts in the sample code should be modified into the required function, such as the port number and the value number. I also add the variation of colors following the value variation from potentiometers. The effect was pretty. 

Exercise 2: Music Instrument

Diagram:

Video:

Code:

Arduino:

#define NUM_OF_VALUES 2

int tempValue = 0;
int valueIndex = 0;
int values[NUM_OF_VALUES];

void setup() {
Serial.begin(9600);
pinMode(9, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
getSerialData();
tone(9,values[0],values[1]);
}

void getSerialData() {
if (Serial.available()) {
char c = Serial.read();

switch (c) {
case ‘0’…’9′:
tempValue = tempValue * 10 + c – ‘0’;
break;
case ‘,’:
tempValue = 0;
valueIndex++;
break;
case ‘n’:
values[valueIndex] = tempValue;
tempValue = 0;
valueIndex = 0;
break;
case ‘e’:
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_OF_VALUES; i++) {
Serial.print(values[i]);
if (i < NUM_OF_VALUES – 1) {
Serial.print(‘,’);
}
else {
Serial.println();
}
}
break;
}
}
}

Processing:

import processing.serial.*;

int NUM_OF_VALUES = 2;

Serial myPort;
String myString;

int values[] = new int[NUM_OF_VALUES];

void setup() {
size(500, 500);
background(0);

printArray(Serial.list());
myPort = new Serial(this, Serial.list()[ 1 ], 9600);

myPort.clear();
myString = myPort.readStringUntil( 10 );
myString = null;
}

void draw() {
background(0);
for (int i=0; i<values.length; i++) {
values[0] = mouseX;
values[1] = mouseY;
}

sendSerialData();
echoSerialData(200);
}

void sendSerialData() {
String data = “”;
for (int i=0; i<values.length; i++) {
data += values[i];
if (i < values.length-1) {
data += “,”;
}
else {
data += “n”;
}
}
myPort.write(data);
}

void echoSerialData(int frequency) {
if (frameCount % frequency == 0) myPort.write(‘e’);

String incomingBytes = “”;
while (myPort.available() > 0) {
incomingBytes += char(myPort.read());
}
print( incomingBytes );
}

Process: Exercise two were made very smoothly after the experience of exercise 1. I found the parts in the sample codes which needed to be rewritten very fast and changed them to fit the requirement. And my first try succeeded. 

A. Definition Evolvement 

During our group project before, I defined interaction as the process of a device receiving signals from other subjects, then going through an intelligent thinking process, finally reacting to the signals; and I considered it as a conversation between two subjects, including the exchange of information.

However, after working on my midterm project and learning about Processing, I realize there were limitations in my definition of interaction. In the previous definition, I stated that interaction is a conversation between only “two subjects”. During the midterm project, we made an instrument that can respond to the player’s hand movements – there can be one player only, but of course, can also be two players together to combine their melodies. I also experienced many other groups’ projects which involve multiple users to interact with both other users and the device, such as the laser aiming game I saw in the user test, which contained competition between two users through the device; and the princess rescue game, which constructed a story about four players and the “prince” and “dragon” set in the device. All these experiences about my midterm project inspire me that interaction could be a conversation involves multiple subjects instead of limited in two. Moreover, I didn’t mention the purpose of interaction in my previous definition. Through the midterm project and the learning process of Processing, I think I could evolve this part in my definition. The midterm project has taught me that interaction can not only be achieved in a useful device but also can be used for an artistic or recreational device. And during learning Processing, we created several programs that could work out random outcomes without certain purposes of usage, artistry or entertainment. But the results showed us many impressive possibilities for creation. Thus, I think the definition of interaction should also include its purposes which are to output either useful, artistic, recreational, or exploratory product.

B. Project Research

One project that aligns with my definition is Anti-Drawing Machine. As in its description, the device “allows either a disrupted or collaborative drawing by manipulating the rotation and position of an ordinary paper material”. People can either try to insist on their drawing direction or let the machine lead their drawing; there can also be multiple users drawing their picture together on the same piece of paper. The machine often makes users feel funny when it disrupting or collaborating out of the users’ expectation, and the users may get surprised by the unpredictable and unique work at last. It involves amazing interaction because through the “conversation” with users, it can either output a surprising artistic work or bring brightness to the users, or both.

In addition, the project Bit does not align with my definition. This project presents “a natural random process” based on the principle of a Markov chain. It contains four machines and each one consists of special “information” engraved on its arm as input and “event” which is a move caused by the motor as output. And each event would trigger a corresponding piece of “information” on another machine, then make the machine have a move as next “event”. Though the rule of how four machines move one by one is interesting and it may have a kind of initial interaction among four machines, this project does not take an external input and the experiencers’ possible interaction with it is very limited – it seems that what the audience can do is only predicting which of the machines will move next. Thus, there cannot be an interactive conversation between multiple users and the project,  as the device does not accept signals from the external world.

C. “New” Definition

Though Crowford, Igoe, and many other authors almost all give a three-part definition to “interaction” which emphasize its function, I think there are also other elements worth mentioning in the definition, such as its participants and purpose. Based on all the above experiences and projects, I want to redefine interaction as the process of a device receiving signals from at least one other subjects, then going through intelligent thinking, finally reacting to the signals; it is a conversation between two subjects or more, for achieving an either useful, artistic, recreational or exploratory work. In my opinion, usage, art, entertainment, and exploration are four dimensions crucial to our human civilization, and the designers always try to create meanings for humans by achieving values in the four dimensions, including in the way of interaction. Therefore, from my perspective, “interaction” should always be a human-centered concept, no matter regarding its participants or its purposes.