For the very first recitation of this semester we learned some basic techniques like soldering and assembleling simple circuits.
For the soldering unfortunately I didn’t take any pictures but the main problem I had was the soldering pen was not hot enough when it was all rusty and could not melt the metal. I tried to rub the tip on the steel wool to try to remove the rust but the tip just got rusty again when I started to solder again. So in the end I had to change to another workstation to use another pen. I was wondering if simply rising the temperature of the pen could do the job but I was afraid that it may damage and rust the pen even more.
For the simple circuits I managed to build up two circuits which are door bell and the lamp. The first problem we met was reading the diagram. It was very different than what I was used to in highschool, but once I understood the logic of drawing it, it became easier to read.
tests:
1.door bell blooper
this was because the direction of the button was vertical rather than horizontal, which made it short-outed itself, and that’s why once the circuit was connected, the speaker started to buzz.
2. light blooper
this was simply because the wire dropped because we didn’t insert it stably enough… things like this do happen sometimes…
3. 4. both circuits work
about the reading:
I think what I built today is essentially the same with the “Nintendo refrigerator” thing mentioned in The Art of Interactive Design, in which there are simply just one kind of interaction that involves very few (if not only one) circuit’s status, for example: on/off, strong current/weak current etc. So according to the article, the circuits I built were interactive.
In my opinion the article did not quite touch on the difinition of “interactive” deeply yet, instead it pointed out the mass usage of the word which resulted in its meaning diluted and misunderstood, which is a problem that already occured to me before. So this article, despite the fact that it did open a new way of thinking zbout the word “interactive”, it did not add many new ideas on top it.
about the video:
to me “how can” deems to be too big of a question. I mean, just have a look at how many movements you can do with your body (which is one side of the two “actors”), how many parts od them can move in a specific pattern: eyes, head, fingers, limbs, tongue… and just imagine how many mediums (which is another side of the two “actors”) we can put these mvement on to make interactives on. What i’m trying to say is that there are infinite numbers of possibilities to make interactions, but what matters is that whether it has an importance or not.