Shoot it!- Melissa Ching-Rudy
During the midterm I though back to the experience I previously gained in this course. The first required readings we had helped define interaction as the dialogue between the technology and the user, with speaking, listening, and responding (The Art of Interactive Design, Crawford). During our group project this semester, my group focused on how to set the stage but not directly instruct others on what was to be done (Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen by Tom Igoe). So, for our midterm project, I wanted to make sure the intentions of the design were clear and that the user could make decisions base on the device or the project. I previously read about a project where someone can patent a device with a remote control, and I wanted our game to give the user a variety of options (Overloaded.supply – Superfluous (object) futures). In the end, we ended up with a handheld ball shooting device and a basketball hoop that counts point. While ball shooting devices already exist, I believe that they most often used pressurized air or are a tension release. Additionally, ball shooters using the method we chose to use are often used as a stationary device used in training for sports such as tennis. This game also provides an opportunity for two players, who can either work with or against one another. The concept is best suited as a fun activity between friends.
The idea was first my partner’s idea that we developed upon. He was inspired by the use of the fan and motor during class. We chose to use ping pong balls because they are lightweight and fairly cheap. We planned to create the whole box using the provided cardboard and use the fan and motor used during class. The original idea also used a closed area of a box, in which one side would hold the basket and the other the shooting device. Outside of the box, we planned to put buttons to adjust the position of the shooter and separate buttons to adjust the basket. We realized that the moving part would be complicated, so we fist focused on being able to get the shooting and scoring mechanism. The buttons would be the actual buttons or a slider. But upon exploring the internet, we found that most ball launchers used pressurized air or motors with two wheels. So, we switched our idea to use two spinning wheels. This complicated the way we would be able to move the shooter, so we considered potentially changing the speed of the motors instead and off the option to change the vertical position of the hoop. The idea was to use a pressure sensor to allow the user to apply a certain pressure for a certain speed. We were asked about how this would be different, and we though that the pressure sensor would be more interactive. Due to the lack of time and a result, the pressure sensor was no longer necessary. Rudy was able to provide us with a variety of motors. The first pair we tested, we believed didn’t move fast enough. We tested some more and the one we chose moved much faster with much less energy. The dimensions of the box also did not seem long enough for the speed at which the balls were moving. So we decided to repurpose the slope we made to be the backing for the goal. The buttons were then also evidently pointless, as the device could then be handheld and adjusted by the user. We chose to use the thicker cardboard for the back of the goal, which was originally the slope, and the main box for holding the motors, due to the weight of the motors and the pressure of the moving ball. In addition to the cardboard sheets, we also reused the cardboard from a previous recitation. The basket was also able to count points. By the use of an IR distance sensor, the ball making a goal would provide a point. The final product was handheld on both ends, we wanted to make sure they could both be easily held. Despite our Halloween colors, I tried to use orange to indicate the placement of the ball and the points where we should grip the products. The color orange also happened to be the same color as the ping pong balls.
I think the most significant step was deciding the launching mechanism, I did research before we started as I wanted to see how feasible using a fan would be as I was concerned about the ability to direct the air and ball to reach the basket. I would say that we both discussed the ideas for moving the basket and launching. I would say that I would brought up these ideas and the logistical aspects of it. I though of how the movement of the launcher would correspond to the movement of the basket. I had periods where my partner spent more time on the project due to my other commitments. He focused more so on the development of the basket and the scoring system. I focused more on the launcher. After the user testing, we noticed people were unsure as to where to place or put the ball in to the launcher. I worked to make a slope to put the ball into that would lead the ball to go between the two wheels at a optimal position. I first created the slope and tested the ability of the slop to work by hand. Then I placed down the motors with the appropriate distance. I build the box around that to house the breadboard and cover up the motor. I would say that this decision on separation and the movement of the pieces contributed to the interaction aspect of the project.
Our original idea was to make a ball shooting game, in the end, we did just that. Users are able to make their own decisions regarding how to use the device. But, I think we could have made the game more interactive in some way, so the user the game would be more distinct. If we had more time, I think we would work on the timer aspect we considered and maybe think of a way to make the device cordless. I also feel a lack of technical coding regarding the motors and would like to see what can be done. I was not expecting the positive response that we received during the presentation. I did not think we brought enough to the table, but our peers seem to have a positive view of the project. I might have rethought the color choice and how to make the method of holding the shooter more clear. I would say I learned that things will not go as planned, and to expect things to change from the beginning. I am not sure if our developments were more a result of technical complications or done out of our desired outcome, but I think that overall, communication and the way we communicate is important. I had difficulty understanding my partner’s ideas and vice versa, which led to some frustration. By the end we learned to trust each others judgement. So, developing the idea into reality was hard and took time and a lot of changes, but the end result is better that what we imagined in the beginning.