a table and a light

Possible Design Object using Jelly!

My new project titled Possible Design Object is a continuation of my previous work. I believe a designer's key role is to define entry points that channel data derived from interaction with the design object and serve to structure the design object itself.

My first implementation of this software is a collaborative story, text, any word or adhjksf based application. expressive, low barrier to entry, synchronous, anonymous...check out the first version...***still a work in progress!
www.fun.jellyproject.com
... On the right side of the screen is a continuous body of text. On the left side is a series of "sensors" input boxes to which users can add their own pieces of text. In order for a single user's text to be added to the group body of text, other people need to vote on it. When the number of votes on a node of text surpasses a threshold, the text leaves the node and transitions to the right side. If after a certain amount of time, no one likes the text in a node, the node eventually degrades and dies.

Last night and today in class I did two quick runs of user testing. each test lasted about 3 minutes. User testing is great! very funny and you learn a lot.

observation 1:
initial barrier to understanding a new interface. during this faze, people try to figure out what is going on, are hesitant, and testing out the application. and VERY quick to alert the bugs. are fearful of breaking anything.

observation 2:
after the first few minutes, people were writing small words...a discon-
nect between input side and output side.

observation 3:
people started writing longer input. still not a huge connection with
output.

There is an interesting challenge here. How do you build a complete system, where input from users is channeled in a way that is continuously relevant to output. How much do you want to direct output to be a certain way? Loose? Structured? Rigidity of endpoint objectives can vary. How clear do you want a the starting point to be?

At what point does "group" value outweigh "me" value to a user? Can both "group and me" values be realized simultaneously?

My professor raised an interesting interface issue today in class about my project. I'm not sure if I understand exactly what he meant. But I think he was arguing that writing text in little blue boxes on a screen is a big abstraction for a user. I am not in disagreement with him. Am I just forcing users to consent to the arbitrary vocabulary of my system? another abstraction in the scope of computers...which are already abstract? Yes, but it is immensely important to challenge pre-existing vocabularies, show that they are not fixed, break them and try new ones. even if they seem a bit funny at first. funny is good.

That being said, my users were running with the application during testing after under a minute. I think that this is pretty low for new software, that is providing new opportunities for creativity...i hope.

There are a few Possible Design Objects that I want to experiment with over the next few weeks.
- classroom educational tool...a way to be continuously expressive on a subject, no fear of being wrong, or taboo, can express when it is not your turn to talk, or if you don't like to talk.

- interface with existing design process...brainstorming shoe design.

- design idea...clock design

- price bidding model

- use system to release first possible design object...more to come on this soon...

I spent the last two weeks building the first version. I wanted to get a clean framework in place like my other software was...I spent two weeks hacking away at it in PHP ajax css... in the end it was buggy, dirty and would not be portable to run different design ideas like I was doing with my other software. The good news is, I learned a ton about web-development and that the languages used were not designed to build software...(it never realy made sense). The better new is, two days ago, I decided to rewrite it all using JELLY!!! (Kunal Gupta and Tristan Perich's web-development platform...). I don't know if you have seen this at all, but I have great things to say about their software...they re-frame web-development in a way that is about writing REAL, cohesive software, as opposed to making redundant, inefficient, fragmented nothingness...the way most websites are....websites...ugh...those things are byebye. finally a great new tool! yay jelly! so easy an alligator could do it!

velcro clock

Making clocks: two goals for using technology to revisit the design of an existing tool. 1-Maximize instances for relevant user input into a design object. Opportunities for users to insert meaning and relevance that is specific to a present instance of interaction. 2-Minimize moments where the designer imposes top-down vocabularies that rely on users to consent to design premises that may not necessary or relevant at that particular moment. We should only have to consent when ABSOLUTELY necessary. minimize amount of UNDO.

People moving and patterns. We navigate the world in the most efficient way possible. In a straight line. Stopping to ask questions only when it is necessary. At a blockage, a signal, an alarm. At moments when our forward moving inertia is or is about to be challenged. Designers take advantage of this behavior, and build in patterns, short cuts that condense the pathways to certain goals. There is a problem here. There are a few problems here. The first problem is that once we hit a barrier, it is often too late to take a step back. We have already consented to the vocabulary, impositions of a designer that set the stage for the problem to occur. We don't necessarily know where those moments of consent were, or even if they were necessary at the time.

When designing a user experience, we code these scenarios, hoping for the magical moments where users seamlessly consent, when conscious attention is not alarmed, when users do not have to stop and question. It is a way to cut corners, and it makes things work for most people, but not necessarily everyone. Humans are great at adapting to new behavior. We make designers jobs pretty easy. But I think designers should have to work harder. We should not be designing patterns. We should be designing transformations that can be triggered through pathways determined by the user. This past week google decided to add the "invisible" option to gChat. This made me really annoyed. When I started to think about why I was mad, I realized that it was because google introduced a new vocabulary into their product that they were forcing me to consent to. Why today? Why now? How did they happen upon this decision (and I'm sure they did a ton of research)? But what data were they using to reach this decision? And how is it relevant to me and my experience with the product right now? I was annoyed because even if I chose not to make my status invisible, I was consenting to it's inverse, which was to be visible. And all of a sudden I was using new words to describe my user experience that were not relevant to my current interaction. This language could potentially have some implications further down the road... every pattern has it's inverse, something that you may one day be accountable for.

Technology lets us do better at addressing these problems. With new materials for design, we can build things in ways to continuously channel user input, and use data derived from that input to restructure the design of the object.

I have decided to make a series of interactive clocks. Not because I think they should be used, but because I want to show that just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it always has to be like that. The first clock is one where users can adjust the numbers. The hands move at a constant speed, but users can change the distance between the hours. Why do certain parts of the day seem to go by much faster than others? How do we adjust a clock so that the time between hours actually looks the way it feels. Sometimes you might want more time between 2 and 3 o'clock...or maybe you are bored and need 7'oclock to come sooner. How do you design for this type of interaction? How does such an object channel input from a community? Especially a clock, how do you interact with one?

But we are not all good at the same things, we do not all have the same triggers. The goal of a design object is to grant keys to access to some transformation. We cannot all use the same keys, nor do we want to, but we are all looking for certain experiences.

Advances in technology should lead to increased instances of asking questions. (not consciously), but we should design in a way that is empowering to users of all abilities and all types of input.

A pattern and it's inverse is implicit in the design object. We should minimize these moments of consent and instead be focusing on designing the transformation. And all of the different relevant and meaningful ways to access the user experience.


some clocks


**c_03-2beadPulley designs**c_05-pegboard clock
**c_04-liquid clock
c_02-pulley bead

ice-melt switch

more topology. How to transform what is in our heads into something perceivable by others, their senses, how do we ensure that what we encode will be decoded correctly by our users? and how much, if at all, does accuracy matter?

We are constrained by our senses. Constrained to the ways our eyes, ears, bodies... perceive our relationship to the world. This week I was reading a book called "Knots-mathematics with a twist" by Alexei Sossinsky and I came across an interesting bit of information. The two mathematicians who envisioned Antoine's necklace and Zuev's wild knot (two crazy knots) were both blind. Sossinsky then proceeded to talk about tests that were done with blind people who regained their sight. These people were able to see differences in 3-dimensional structures before being able to tell the difference between 2-dimensional structures. So they could differentiate a torus and a sphere but not a square and a circle. Our sensory perception binds us to certain dimensions. Dimensions that are relevant to our physical body. For instance, the sensors in our eyes are laid out on the 2-dimensional surface of our retina. This is really useful from an evolutionary standpoint, but it is interesting to think about what our mind is really capable of it is not governed by our sensors. This week our assignment for Amit's class was to build something with a switch. A single dimension, and leaving class one other thing that Amit said stuck in my head. "People do distance, that is it". I think this is a really meaningful way to look at things. Absolute values are the only thing that is valuable to us. Build whatever you want, but know that as humans, we will "sample" your innovation 1-bit at a time.


At first this might seem a bit boring. But it is really a fundamental constraint that is the basis of all innovation. Sensors on their own are not so interesting. We have millions of them, and each one of them on their own either fires or doesn't. boring. The interesting part about all of this is not the sensor itself, but instead the way these signals are processed. In essence it is a transformation from a 1-dimensional data set into, what potentially could unlock some n-dimensional representation in your brain. Artists do this best.

The role of the artist(designer) is to encode transformations from 1-dimensional counterpoints, to spaces beyond your wildest imaginations. These counterpoints are keys to infinite dimensions. The reason this can be a hard problem is because it is impossible to experience the transformation on the other end. For the best artists, this process comes naturally. And the process that I'm talking about is not trying to guess what will be experienced on the other end. I think any attempt at that is futile. We could hypothesize, but know that you cannot know. The more natural process is to come up with ways to transform whatever n-dimensional thought into something as efficient, clean and expressive as possible. And this can be anything, as long as the transformation feels natural to you. (no wrong answer). Essentially what we end up with are 1-dimensional triggers for switches on our bodies.

What does this mean to us? As designers, innovators, artists... we need to assume that the materials of the future will be equipped with sensors that are attached to really good computers. With advances in technology, our materials are becoming more like our bodies. They are complete systems, systems that are described by input, output, a data-set(tendency towards some representation...like genetic map), and pathways for feedback. That being said, our bodies (until we mutate) are still bound to our 1-dimensional sensors. So at the end of the day, the way we experience innovation is still the same. We will enter the innovative scape of the future in the same body that 500 years ago stood inside the Sistine Chapel.

This week I tried playing around with those questions. Specifically, what does it mean to build with a material that senses? I started with images in my head that could best be described as "walking through sensors". How does structure define input to that structure? How is that data managed? What can it be used for? Is it necessarily reconnected to that structure? Or can it be recycled to another system?
I began by building on my previous model for discrete systems interacting through counterpoints of other systems and began to think about what the bare minimum is that you need to make use of such a counterpoint. I decided to make a "ice melt sculpture", pictured on the left, where ice would be placed at the top, and as it melted, it would activate the switches embedded in the form. I then connected it to my software model (the one I've been using for everything) so that each drip would be encoded as a new system interacting. And the resulting data would influence the visualization. I'll skip the details on the logic behind it all, but ask if you are interested. So the concept that I was going after is that water, air and now the ice melt switch (including my visualization) are all discrete systems. Each have starting point properties... the water, air molecules have a starting point, data set, density mapping just like my ice melt switch. So the innovation is explicitly a complete system, with tendencies, pathways for mutation...just like other discrete systems...

I'm not really happy with the result, but I'm very happy about what I learned from the process. I am starting to gain a perspective on how new ways of channeling data can help to create, open up, describe new types of spaces and experiences. The only thing that I really like about this is that it describes a visualization, that without this technology, I could never make myself. I would never be able to draw, that specific, unique, seemingly random moment created by this sculpture and collision of systems. After doing this once, I now have the data in a way that is visible to me, so I can do what I want with it. (I am actually very interested in doing hand drawings of data from these points of interaction. specifically realizing a pathway where I could acheive something that without a machine would not have been possible). making humans behave more like machines...realizing that intersection...

I like the idea of designing for data, what if instead of making something, the purpose of what you make is just a data-capturer...an empty space, filled with all types of sensors. All data is the same. So technically, you could apply a data set, taken from virtually anything, to anywhere you choose. this is kind of cool to me, also a huge problem, but something that I want to play with. To be more clear, I could take the data from my ice melt sculpture and build anything from it. connect it to the lights in my house. make an infinite number of drawings, visualizations. Use it to tell me if I'm hungry...

I think these are a lot of interesting questions. How do we structure a vocabulary that describes how to interact with an object, so that the data recycled back into the structure of the object is relevant?

Human expression in the future continues to involving extending, abstracting and implanting counterpoints, pieces of ourselves into the world. But now these pieces are sensors, attached to processors. So the world we are walking to has pathways for intelligence, an intelligence much different from our own.

some notes and ideas

***first draft of software design model***
thinking a lot about topology, in terms of this type of data analysis. how is identity connected to relative position within a system? how can you map, model closeness of systems, a way to visualize relevant position through interacting systems. n-dimensional spheres...but doesn't seem good...just a sense (an ignorant one probably with not a lot of understanding). A system needs to be more fluid. knots are cool....um

the link above is an outline of how i want pieces to work together with more than 2 systems interacting. the models below work on same principles...but not networked.

other than that...sketches, notes and models from this week. sort of at a stuck point, trying to figure out how to put pieces of previous models together.

xicui entertainment center - content prototype 1

*** here is a link to run my first demo ... this is just a draft, more to show a concept...a work in progress ***
It is important to remember that at the core of all computational processes is physical matter. Physical matter, a material, like brick, stone, grass or air. Our imprint can and should be seen in this matter. A brick wall as a discrete system, has a tendency towards expressing an inherent state. When another discrete system, such as a person comes into contact with the wall. There are pathways, channels, entry points into the system of the wall. Keys access these. Keys are everywhere…walls can be anything. You need an entry point to change the state of the wall. And depending on the wall’s natural tendency (rigidness….or high probability) towards a certain state can influence our ability to effect the wall. That being said, data stored in databases is the same as the data of walls. It is a new material however, with the ability to mimic, transform, a template to create virtually any system…and apply to it virtually any properties.
This is a really exciting idea for me, what happens when the material of computers, bits, is packaged in ways that it can be extended onto all different properties. Where the interaction between discrete systems, trying to connect becomes the structure of the system itself.

The xicui entertainment center is a building facade with 640x370 square led panels. Each led panel, doubles as a solar panel, with photo-voltaic cells that store energy during the daytime. With no light, the wall has an inherent texture, tendency towards a certain pattern. This pattern is described by 3 different categories of pixels that make up the wall. The darkest panels are the ones with the most photo-voltaic cells (let the least amount of light through. The medium have the middle range of photovoltaic cells, and the brightest have no photo-voltaic cells.

Using data from the density mappings of the 3 ranges, this program cycles through the wall, addressing each pixel, one at a time. For each pixel, the wall as a discrete entity is projecting a state (on/off), the state of the wall is not random, it is influenced by the value from the density mapping, specific to each individual pixel. The state the wall is expressing is pulled towards a value determined by the density map. Analogously, the human has their own control. A single isolated entry point, counterpoint, where a vocabulary is shared with the facade. Like the wall, the human can project a state, using the same on/off language. The human and the wall are analogously addressing the same point on the wall. Ultimately, the human has the final say on what value the current pixel will display, but if the wall is in disagreement with the human(determined by probabilities derived from density maps), this will be shown with a red line appearing perpendicular to the current pixel. The size of the line is proportional to the interaction, communication between human and wall at that discrete entry point in time/space.

The effect is one where I hope to create a new wall whose structure is described by the interaction between the human and the natural state of the walls material. A push, pull between both forces...where both discrete bodies are represented, cycle into and form an inherently transformative system.

I have been working on developing a software model in order to study innovation from this theoretical and practical perspective. I am doing, pretty much all of my design projects as iterations of this, because this is how I think we should be designing things. Data is a huge subject, what to do with it, how to clean it up is an important problem and question. I think we should be designing with this in mind. Where the things that we design are specifically to channel, and transform data. Built in sensors (entry points)....which in itself is a transformation between spaces(when you choose entry points, data is lost...), and algorithms on top of this to compute and determine how this data is used, and is recycled back into the system.

interaction model

***CLICK FOR INTERACTION MODEL*****This week's assignment: "design a way, using software, to test user interaction with a system(or device)".

This was an interesting challenge for me because of it's direct relevance to pretty much everything that I have been thinking about these days. Specifically about the purpose of the things we make, and how with technological advances in computation power and shifts in materials, we should begin to restructure the process of innovation.

I have been working on developing a social software model that allows for data derived from the interaction of discrete entities through a system, to be cycled back into and restructure the system itself. I plan to use this model as a framework through which to develop my other projects, as a way to build, test and study this concept.

The link above is a visualization of the BASIC framework. I am very interested in figuring out new ways to design, redesign and study basic innovations...clocks (time is an area that interests me to model). The concept of having a goal, with multiple pathways to achieve that goal... keys (determined by human interaction) that unlock parts of a system.

The model here is based on many theoretical premises...

The foundation of innovation is to establish a counterpoint through which people can connect. Discrete entities cannot connect in the absence of a third party intermediary. This intermediary is a system and can take the form of any counterpoint through which humans can connect, language, art, literature, architecture...etc.

discrete entities represent states that undergo nonlinear transformations to a vocabulary specific to a systems through which it communicates. Vocabularies associated to systems are arbitrary representations of internal states, and thus can be accounted for with binary states...boolean algebra, and probabilities derived from this can be evaluated by a system. This is the interaction and data source that will in turn structure the system.

I am tired.

The code here is a basic framework for my concept. I have a lot more documentation on this subject but haven't found the time to put it in a blog yet. I will write more about it soon...

on windows

windows. the first thing that comes to mind is uncertainty. we build walls, but are not so sure of them. not sure that they are supposed to be there. a window is a hesitation. an uncertain commitment to something rigid. an acceptance that our walls are not absolute. dissatisfaction with our tools as incomplete, indefinite, representations of our expression. windows make walls movable. open walls up to, and acknowledge the possibility that walls can always be better. if not at that moment, in that circumstance, some other. the vocabulary of windows exists for a reason, a concession, plea, that walls are indefinite.

on walls

When you build something, you create a channel for human interaction. An interface that allows discrete entities to connect. Walls. People don't talk to walls. People talk to people. Through walls. Architectures embedded with symbols and meaning. Vocabularies. When walls become dynamic transformative structures, what happens to the vocabularies that used to surround them. What new symbols do they express, and meaning do they represent. How do we define, redefine vocabularies. A building facade, a series of nodes, windows. Objects suspended on a two-dimensional grid. Entry points with variables brightness, movement... When a wall becomes a screen, the nodes break free. A new dimension to a structure is added. Where do you draw the line in terms of playing with old meaning, and introducing new. genre film. Using established vocabularies of genre as a starting point, and diverging from there. Short cuts to break free from and surprise. Transformation in media happens all of the time. These conventions have already been addressed, broken, time and time again. It still interests me though what these transformations will look like in architecture, with such an strongly anchored vocabulary.

Speaking of walls and surprise. The other day a member of this class typed his thesis proposal onto my facebook wall. If we were in another time, where facebook didn't exist, and I lived in a wooden shack, I think he probably would have thrown it up on the wall of my shack with a crayon. At least that is what it felt like he was doing. There is meaning attached to the way we move around walls, and talk to people through them. I don't feel this way about other comments on my facebook wall. By that I mean other people wouldn't have written on my shack. Just this person. Everyone moves around walls differently. People make marks on them. You learn about people trhough those marks. SOme walls are more rigid. Some crumble when you touch them. Some walls let you see certain people more than others.

earn your pixels

first make them
then use them.

xicui entertainment center notes

some sketches for Xicui entertainment center facade in Beijing. New parameters, an old vocabulary, a new one to define, build stretch. At what point do I start to pull? a wall. delimiter of space. interior, exterior. detached. The facade of a building is a series of nodes. Fixed, suspended in space. Each node grants entry to another dimension. A world within a frame. You cannot get too close, but stand too far and you see nothing but a grain of light. a step behind it is gone. Layering of nodes, x,y,z, fluid, dimension, movement. trapped, a frame, structure. can you step out? light darkness, vision obscured, try to see more but cannot. Step out, in. navigate. move. explore. be curious. ask. step inside.

wooden pivot floor clock - clock design for visually impaired

When I first began to think about this assignment, I was immediately drawn to objects with time, naturally embedded in their structure. I thought about watches that we carry with us. Biological processes, hunger, thirst, digestion, outdoor sounds...cycles...water evaporation. Cycle of degradation, change. This timeline exists in all things, but often in a way that is not easy to perceive. (too fast, too slow and unable to sense). You could potentially use the oxidation of a copper roof outside your bedroom window as a clock. But, not to tell time in seconds, instead perhaps in years. People use the sun as a way to denote time for a few good reasons it seems. It changes in a way that is perceivable by our natural, un-augmented senses. And cycles in a way that is close to and thus "sets" our own clocks(24.5 hour cycle to 24 of sun). Almost no confusion there. The sun's presence is everywhere, and can be noted as a parameter that is present in the things we design.


I started thinking about how big a role sunlight plays in living spaces. How our houses are designed to tell the time. but what about people who cannot see light? From here I got the idea of a clock that is a panel sits on a pivot on the floor (hopefully for safety reasons would be subtly and seamlessly embedded in architecture). But the model still works as a floor, desk, wrist, wall... clock. The panel pivots in according to what time it is, and subtly steers you to a location in your house where you should be at that time. (that is how the idea came to be, but it works with out those implementations).

A simple square panel, a pivot (ball) on center underside. On upper surface a raised marker to indicate 12.
8 discrete time positions, (edges and corners...but can use distance between floor and edge as a way to precisely tell the times in between).

You can use your body to tell time (stand on clock and "feel time"). Or you can use a blind walking cane to feel the surface, angle of surface to ground according to pivot.

The pivot rotates according to the time of day.
12:00->top edge is flat on ground.
3:00->right edge is flat on ground.
4:30->bottom-right corner is on ground. (with equal space edges adjacent to corner)
1:10->top-right corner is on ground, but adjacent edge space between ground and wooden surface is less between upper edge than on right edge...

My in class idea used the cycle of wet cloth drying to tell the time. I thought that this was an ok solution, but one for very rigid constraints. Hang a wet cloth in the morning on an elastic rope. At earlier times of day when the cloth is wet, when you prick the elastic, it is a higher note...later, cloth dry, lighter, lower note. Problems: higher learning curve, (even though I like the idea of evolving a relationship with objects), maybe not so precise(needs controlled air, temp conditions), uses two variables...tactile "wetness of cloth" but also sound "prick elastic", to broadcast time,...not so necessary or efficient (unless there are more constraints).

simple communication model - v3 - icm final

CLICK TO WATCH PLAY

Can two humans communicate in the absence of a third party intermediary such as language, art, technology...?
I built this model in order to explore how a reduced system of communication operates. Innovation, a counterpoint for two humans to connect. Project, extend themselves into the world, connect and thus recreate themselves and each other. I want to make things. In order for me to do this, it is important for me to explore the principles behind the way systems operate.

Data derived from simple rules give rise to complex systems.

A structure built with a controlled randomness. Determined by two pixels (can be replaced by two humans), each continuously projecting one of two states (white/black). When both are same, a square is drawn within the system. The system uses the screen size as starting point parameters and then maps onto a cylindrical structure. The starting point parameters are controlled by the probabilistic relationship between two pixels. (simple communication model). Some parameters controlled by this are... square size, location to center axis...(-/+ radius * this dimension), the height of the cylinder is mapped to a sine wave(also controlled by these values), as is the rotation of the structure along the x,y,z axis. Each pixel within the dimension of the screen is reconstructed using this system. The drawing ends when every pixels is reached.

Here are a few screenshots from a piece I just finished. I realize (yesterday my friend Hall pointed this out to me :) ) that in my model of "simple" communication, I ended up with something that is ironically obscure, abstract and difficult to communicate. Nonetheless, it is a process that was helpful for me in understanding a system. And hopefully someone might enjoy one or two of the pictures.


For more about this visualization model, based on reduced, simple communication, see previous entries.