PERFORMANCE: TIDE – AI
Members: Alice, Constance, Tim, Yancy
The intention of our artifact was to create a device that limits other device usage by tying its usability to how often the user interacts with other people. Once time runs out on the device, it will shut down all of the user’s other devices. The devices would then turn back on and recharge once enough socialization has occurred.
The strengths and limitations of the artifact were presented through our demonstration.
SUCCESSES OF ARTIFACT:
The device successfully addresses one of the primary issues presented in the “Connection Paradox” prompt by solving the feeling of disconnection that can result from being constantly online. Our artifact remedies this by requiring people to socialize with other individuals for a specified duration to extend use of their devices. This ensures that connections between real-life human beings still occur and remain important.
While able to solve the problem of being chronically online, digitally addicted, and encouraging in-person socialization, the artifact has numerous limitations.
FAILURES OF THE ARTIFACT:
Main Problem:
I feel that the type of connection made by this artifact is not necessarily authentic. People are primarily motivated to socialize with others because they want to use their devices, which could take away from forming meaningful social interactions. However, despite this potential issue, the main purpose of the device is to create opportunities for developing meaningful connections with people. Although there may be some initial resistance from those just wanting to use their devices, with time, people may adjust to the new government mandate requiring installation of TIDE AI and gradually develop habits of forming meaningful connections as they go outside to recharge their devices through socialization.
Others:
As noted in our script, the economy could also be initially impacted. As individuals adjust to disconnecting from devices to socialize outdoors, significant modifications would need to be made to lifestyle routines in order to adapt to the constraints introduced by this technology’s implementation. This appears to be a temporary limitation arising from the product, but one that could be addressed over the longer term as habits adjust. People would need to restructure how they structure their daily lives and schedules to accommodate the need to interact face-to-face when seeking to use digital devices. While challenging at first, over time as social norms and expectations change, the flow of everyday living could smooth out to align with the new parameters in place around technology utilization.
RELATION TO “INTERACTION”
In my research, interaction was defined as “as a dialogue between an audience and an artistic work through direct engagement and action…The role of the artist is to “set the stage” by carefully considering how to facilitate interaction without dictating interpretation”.
Our team selected the “Connection Paradox” design prompt to develop our artifact in response to. Given that, I believe our artifact relates well to existing forms of social interaction identified in the definition. For example, during our presentation the professor commented that initially he was unclear on what our device was meant to be. However, through our demonstration we were able to tie everything together to clearly illustrate the intended purpose and function of the product. Even his early uncertainty represented a kind of interaction with our presentation, which then served to resolve any questions about how our solution aimed to address the connection issues presented by the prompt. This suggests our artifact aligned with established interaction norms while also effectively conveying its value proposition, showing how it could help to resolve the paradox described.
our lovely professor in question
While our artifact related to established interaction norms, it could have better communicated its capabilities. Like the professor’s initial confusion, the audience may not have realized without our demonstration that the device implanted within the body and could open to reveal an emergency button. Only through watching our performance portraying intended use did its proper function and operation become clear. Rather than the design intrinsically indicating its features, understanding relied more on our supplemental presentation. This suggests the product itself was not fully self-explanatory and required less explanation through improved communication of its affordances in form alone.
first iteration of product (no emergency button. no proper coloring)
However, technology that far in the future may inherently be less intuitive, as norms will have shifted from today. Being set in 2124, over a century from now, people’s natural habits for interacting with devices may have changed dramatically by that point. As such, what seemed unintuitive now could align well with expectations of that more advanced era. Given the substantial technological progress likely to occur between now and then, it is difficult to see what forms of communication and instruction would be standard. Our artifact, while requiring explanation presently, could very well mesh appropriately with norms of its own period far in the future.
SHOWCASING DETAILED ARTIFACT INTERACTION
While our performance effectively showcased the artifact’s interactions and cleared confusion, opportunities remained. Through demonstration, we conveyed its uses and resolved others’ uncertainties. However, with aspects I would like changed discussed later, I believe its presentation could have been strengthened. Our enactment sufficiently explained interactions but room for improvement existed in how the artifact was featured.
TIDE AI performance
ILLUSTRATING COMPLEX NATURE OF TECHNOLOGY
Features and the Nature of our Product:
Our demonstration illustrated technology’s complex physical nature by showing the artifact implanted in the body and connecting personal devices.
How technology affects the world and yourself:
We depicted technology’s nuanced impacts. The device was displayed potentially changing socializing and relationship quality. Its effects on the economy additionally were exhibited at a macro level. Implantable technology could jeopardize privacy if data is accessible without consent. Physical interaction may also be viewed negatively if chiefly damaging businesses. While progress benefits, considering advantages and implications ensures developments aid lives without unintended effects.
CHANGES:
Artifact Changes
While the current artifact provides a basic representation of a futuristic implanted technology, some improvements could further illustrate its intended design as an and make it appear more polished.
- Decreasing the overall size to reflect a more futuristic style (with more compact technology prevalent).
- Additional interactive elements like buttons or sliders cut into the artifact could demonstrate how a user might control or receive feedback from the device.
- Since it is non-functional, designating a specific area for the AI would represent its auditory output abilities.
- Refining the cut lines and implementing a cleaner work in coloring would make the project appear more professionally produced.
- Making the design look more intuitive to avoid confusion on its usage.
Performance Changes
I felt our performance effectively conveyed the product’s utility, strengths, and limitations. However, developing the setting of the play could have been improved through a more “show, don’t tell” approach. Rather than narrating placing the artifact in the future- mandated by government, a news skit could have depicted this event in a more engaging manner. Additionally, the concluding summary of benefits and advantages as simple discussion lacked impact – though alternate ending scenes were not thought off, a more interactive format may have resonated better. While effective overall, enriching setting and conclusion with greater visualization could have strengthened impact of our performance and our artifact.
**Here are some random documentation shots showing the changes we made overtime
initial fabrication of artifact
cutting some stuff
artifact first taking shape
prop making
initial coloring
recolor of artifact
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUP (TELEPHONE)
Meeting Criteria: 9/10
The group was able to provide a direct and clever solution to the “Connection Paradox” problem. Contrasting to our project, they gave the user more control and authority in order to foster relationships that are not forced, a very smart idea with a strength that contrasts ours.
The use of the telephone and the performance were very creative. It clearly showed how the phone works, it’s utility in connecting people, as well as the limitations that comes with it. Through the various scenes and interaction with the device, the group was able to help the audience understand the artifact clear enough.
Suggestions
Despite the wonderful performance of the group. I feel that they should have placed more emphasis on the phone itself, rather than including a VR. There is a limited amount of connectedness you can feel through VR, and being able to develop a relationship solely through talking can strengthen said relationship if both parties plan on continuing the partner they “matched” with.
Other than that, the performance and the artifacts complement each other very well and I have nothing but praise for the group.
TEAMWORK/ROLES/ETC
Original Task Allocations and Roles: FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
- Research and Ideation
- Responsible Member(s): Constance, Alice, Yancy, Tim
- Design and Artifact Construction
- Responsible Member(s): Yancy, Tim
- Performance Planning
- Responsible Member(s): Constance, Alice, Yancy, Tim
- Documentation
- Responsible Member(s): Constance, Alice
Teamwork Dynamics
Our team demonstrated effective collaboration on this project. We understood that each member would have strengths and areas for growth, so we worked interdependently to complement each other’s skills. For example, after Alice drafted the initial script, Constance meticulously revised it to better align with the assignment expectations, such as incorporating more showing over telling. I then reviewed the final script.
Given my heavier involvement in creating the Artifact itself, I opted to play a supporting role in the performance, allowing Tim to take a leading position in showcasing our product.
Throughout the whole process, open communication and feedback were priorities. We checked in frequently with one another and provided multiple perspectives on the project or goal, recognizing how valuable diverse viewpoints can be. This collaborative approach helped ensure we produced quality work by leveraging our collective strengths.
Design and Artifact Construction
In creating the artifact, while I took a lead role in directing the design, Tim provided helpful support by sending inspirational photos that I could draw from for visualization purposes. The rest of the group assisted in cutting out components from cardboard under my direction for construction. I occasionally solicited feedback from everyone, asking for their input on desirable features to include, then made adjustments accordingly based on their suggestions. Their collaborative efforts and thoughts contributed to strengthening various aspects of the final product.
Task Allocations
The task allocation was balanced reasonably well. Alice and Constance concentrated their efforts more on developing the script, while Tim and I focused more heavily on constructing the artifact, with both sides occasionally reviewing each other’s work and providing suggestions. We also aimed to distribute responsibilities evenly, such as while I committed significant time to designing the product, Tim took a larger role in the live performance section compared to my involvement, aiming to compensate so work was shared fairly across team members and skills.
Communication
Communication within the team was very effective due to a dedicated group chat created for the project. Through the chat, we often exchanged photos of our work and scheduled meetings. Additionally, we regularly convened at my dorm room where we would rehearse, progress further on the project, and enhance our relationships as a team. Both the group chat and in-person meetings permitted well-organized collaboration and strengthened unity through sharing ideas and deliberate coordination.
completed shots of all props made for the performance
PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS:
There were 3 main parts to this whole process in general, Brainstorming, Creation of Prototype, Performance
Brainstorming
For brainstorming, I proposed tackling prompt 1 as it offered the most straightforward response. I suggested ideas around limiting device usage, which Constance expanded on by outlining a gadget to deactivate all devices after a set duration. I built on her contribution by suggesting users must socialize to re-enable access. Tim and Constance then recommended physical design inspirations like the arc reactor, aiding our conceptual development of how the gadget might appear and function. Together we were able to bounce related concepts off each other to iteratively refine our artifact approach.
Creation of Prototype
I largely led the prototype development, with occasional assistance from Tim and Constance. Regarding the creation of said prototype, I designed the final design (with Tim helping visualize it), cut most of the cardboard (though the whole team assisted), assembled the design primarily on my own, made the locking mechanism, and painted it the product along with Constance. I also created props like the cardboard laptop and phones to complement the performance. Tim aided visualization while the team supported cutting, but the bulk of the making and conceptual design was carried out under my lead.
Performance
As the narrator for our performance, I also created sound effects for the scenes and played background music with the guitar. I also served as the “Tech Helper” role in the performance. By taking on more supporting roles during the live presentation, I aimed to balance out my leadership in creation of the artifacts themselves. Wanting to distribute responsibilities equally across our team, I opted to contribute in supporting roles for the performance having focused much of my work on developing the prototype.
me n gang
好可爱
Leave a Reply