The three projects that I critiqued were by Nate, Eva, and Dominick. Each of my classmates and their proposal ideas were drastically different from one another.
“The Journey”:
Nate’s project is centered around a “Game of Thrones” narrative. I did not ask him too much about the plot, for that would spoil the show for me, but he did provide me with a basic format of the story he wants to tell. This project is similar to black mirror’s “Bandersnatch” episode (minus the existential themes), or the “Telltale Games” series. A player has a couple choices provided to them on each slide where they make a selection that determines the progression of their character. Nate will have a specified amount of slides that will show the progression of the story and then depending on the decisions each player makes, they will survive or achieve glory. He is planning on using Arduino and button coding as well as audio feedback for his interactive methods. I believe Nate’s original idea is fairly interesting because decision-making games or simulations are popular at the moment, but I think Nate’s biggest challenge will be making his project more interesting/ significant than previous ones, while using Processing. This could be done using more advanced graphics and images (either hand drawn or from elsewhere). Much of our feedback for Nate was asking him to provide further interactive methods or theming that would engage the user more than what he already had planned. Of course, we do not know the full plot of Nate’s story, but we could tell that a simple crudely drawn slides with stories and choice options will not set his project out from others. If he wants his project to create a significant interaction with its users, I believe he will most likely need to focus on the plot and visual/audio effects of his project. Nate’s definition of interaction was different than mine in that it allowed for it included more digital aspects by referring to Arduino and Processing.
“Space Invaders”:
Dominick’s project is intended to be a similar replica of a game where a ship has to doge and shoot its way through meteorites and ships to complete a level. He wants to make things more unique by using a distance sensor to allow users to control their ships movement with their own body movements. I think this idea is intriguing, but it could also be too ambitious for this short amount of time. Being able to calibrate a motion sensor to pick up your movements in a split second may not be feasible for the given programs and materials were are provided with. That being said, I think he should rethink the sensor he would like to use and provide another method of users interacting with the game. I believe that if Dominick wants to create a meaningful project that interact with its users, he should consider an alternative form of interaction than a distance or motion sensor. Dominick’s definition of interaction was similar to mine in that it focused on the “conversation” between two or more entities.
Eva’s Final Project Project:
I found Eva’s project to be the most abstract of our group’s members’ projects and I find that to be a good thing. Eva wants to create an audio/visual experience that will activate the camera feature and show the user’s facial reactions to the audio and visuals being displayed. She wants to focus on the question of whether and to to what extent we lose touch with ourselves. We often do not get to see ourselves, unless we are standing in front of the mirror, so this project provides an open space for self-reflection. Eva’s goal is for the users to have an intimate experience with themselves without any distractions. During our feedback for Eva’s project, we talked a lot about what specific audio she will use. We suggested that the audio be calming or “white noise” in order for the user to be able to tone out what is around them. We also mentioned maybe installing mirrors around the project to allow the user to be in a more secluded environment. I believe that if Eva wants her project to create a significant interaction, she really needs to decide what audio and visuals she will use on the people interacting with her project, for that determines the direction she wants to go in. Eva’s definition of interaction was more simple than mine. It did not need to include a physical interaction, which set it a part from any other definitions that I have heard.
“When the Mind Meets the Eye” (My group’s project)
Most of the feedback I received concerning my final project is centered around what I think the user will get out of it. Examples people gave me involved changing how the user acted with the Mona Lisa itself, for example, when will she be displayed and how will she be displayed. People mentioned displaying the original painting in the beginning and then the personalized version the user creates at the end to compare and contrast. We have decided to run with this idea, but may tweak it if necessary by just showing the user the basic components that they add the the painting after each question. It was also suggested to allow the user to keep their creation, which will are hoping to allow while we create a processing code that will either export the image or submit it to a library. I agree with a majority of the feedback given about my project, but I do not think that we will allow people to physically edit the Mona Lisa with mouses or buttons because I think that takes away from the overall purpose of a questionnaire that reflects the user’s mood, and thus, their interpretation of the painting. As of now, we are not planning on incorporating other feedback on our project, but if someone provides a better method of interaction or display, we are open to their opinions.