1

3DO kitA design report by Michelle van Lieshout

A design project as a part of the 2.2 semester

2 3

In this report the process toward the final design of the 3DO kit is described. Starting with a short explanation of the 3DO kit and a more elaborated version of this explanation. As this project is part of a focus on shape changing interfaces (GHOST theme) it will also elaborate on this, and how the 3DO kit relates to a shape changing interface. The final design will be discussed and next steps are proposed. The report will end with an personal reflection on the process as this is a learning activity part of the bachelor 2.2 semester.

CoachMeerthe Heuvelings

4 5

Table of contentsShape changing interfacesWhy GHOST?GHOST

3DO kitFinal design in shortA tool kit for 3D modelling

ProcessProcess & small reflections

Evaluation of the designDiscussion & next steps

Evaluation of the processReflection

References

56-7

8

910-1112-19

2021 - 52

5354- 55

5657

58

Shape changing interfaces

6 7

Why GHOST?I chose the GHOST project because it leans itself for prototyping with Arduino. At the same time it focusses on the user as well. There are more projects with those qualities, but this one already fitted my vision so well I preferred this project.

Therefore the main reason I chose this project is, because it fits my vision. I want to create exciting and fun moments and experiences by designing extraordinary interactions and tell a story through my designs. To do this I believe I need to make people stand in the moment, by making them lose their flow for a second. This can in my opinion be achieved by an abnormal (creative) or very intuitive interaction.

The GHOST project lets me design such interaction as shape changing interfaces are not common yet and therefore easily evoke an extraordinary interaction.

My vision (and identity) can be found in appendix A.

Collection of shape changing

interfaces

8 9

GHOSTThe aim of shape-changing interfaces is to use haptic feedback to bring the information from the digital world closer to the physical world, creating tangible artefacts that translate your behaviour to feedback. Either with sensory input or with digital input that already exists.

I would like to see shape-changing interfaces go toward another combination of physical and digital design. Not necessarily using them as feedback but letting them work as a team. The physical change should therefore be a reaction to your behaviour. This reaction you would normally call feedback. This is where the digital world should come in, and do something different: interpreting the behaviour and manipulating (intelligent) the objects behaviour to support the goal of the user. Resulting in emergent (assignment Complexity through simplicity) behaviour of the system. Risen from the small behaviours within the user - design interaction.

My definitionA shape changing interface is an interface that has at least two parts moving apart from each other; or one part that can differ in size or form. It must be able to move

3DO kitmanually as well as automated and must always be able to go back to its original shape. Lastly the deformation must be perceptual by feeling and therefore tangible. Most existing (experimental) shape changing interfaces now are either very big, working with air pressure; need cameras to interpret physical movements from the user; or they exist of tiny parts moving apart from each other.

The last of the examples above, many tiny parts moving, fits my aim of shape changing interface best. It is most convenient as it has a myriad of possibilities in creating different shapes and movements.

It would be the ultimate goal to make those parts as small as possible but still influenceable. Clay was therefore the chosen material to work with, especially magnetic clay. Magnetic clay consists of extremely tiny magnetic parts .

10 11

Final design in shortWhen designing in a 3D-modelling environment on the computer you lose the connection you normally have with your designs. The connection you have when you are able to touch them. It is for a reason that they slightly close all laptops in an apple store..

To create a spark with your designs and to help you to truly focus on the thing you are doing the 3Do kit is designed. This kit, filled with controllers for 3D-modeling, helps you to easily iterate your designs. It lets you experience the design you are making on the computer, in real life. With help of the tools you can adjust your created designs. The tools are not there to create the shapes or materials, but there to adjust the shapes you created and to try out different materials, colours etc.

But foremost they are there to make designing on the computer more fun. You can even let your kids find a spark in designing. Be creative and try out something extraordinary.

12 13

Make well thought through decisions with confidence

Management not getting it

Hand problems from long computer work

Lack of sufficient budget

Forgetting the feel of materials and therefore making less thought through decisions

Experience parts of the design --> better quality decisions

Enjoying a variety of

interactions

Easy to understand

Lower cost

Reduce distraction

Lead to better collaboration

A tool kit for 3D modelling Customer jobs

Here you find a value proposition. The lighter parts of the segments are the values that are not supported by the 3Do tool kit.

Perform the iterations on a

design made in a 3D modelling

program (SolidWorks). -->

communicate all ideas

Run ‘daily job’ well.

Communicate to others (team

members that are no designers) what

they design, why they made certain

decisions and how they work. (gain

power or status and appreciation -->

Look good with colleagues, boss,

clients and family

Make things people want.

Feel good about the design and materials used for it.

Make decisions with confidence and well thought through.

Convince others about the preferred design.

Improve skill and set /

advance career

Collaborate with others or help them

Get recognized by the team

Connect with like-minded people

Reduce time spent on daily job

Clear indicators showing progress

Faster results

Gains

Value proposition, the customer segment Designers that make 3D models on the computer

Get bored by doing the same task over and over

Making decisions that are not applicable

Making things nobody wants

No clear path to applying method

DistractionsPains

Help when stuck

Concrete tips

Value proposition, company segmentThe 3Do kit

Products and services

3D modelling software, SolidWorks.

The 3DO kit

An online community of whom you can use already programmed materials etc.

Helps shape ideasGain creators

Making decisions that are applicable

Pain relievers

Easy to understand and communicable, share with colleaguesExperience parts of the design you are making (size / material) to make well thought through decisions

Ease collaboration

Aesthetically good design

A variety of interactions

that fit the human need for

movements

Easy to experience therefore easy

to use to explain to others

Less distraction as there is a variety (and clay) --> improve focus

Enjoyable (intuitive) interactions

Lack of time

14 15

Goal

Through systematic exploration of technology, speculation and perceptual qualities, there was aimed to create a family of artefacts that represent the vision of the future where Shape-change technology would be integrated deeply into our daily life, which in turn would change the way we interact with the world.

I interpreted this aim and changed it for me towards understanding impact of shape changing interfaces; with a focus on the creation an understanding of the working of shape changing interfaces. Leading to an idea of the possibilities of shape change.

The aim of the project for me is making something more enjoyable by integration of intuitive and interesting interactions that let you experience parts of the design. This leading to a spark with what you are doing and a better focus on what you are doing.

I managed to do this by making computer designing more enjoyable by integration of intuitive and interesting physical interactions within the digital design. My design lets you experience parts of the design you are making on the computer. Leading to well reasoned decisions and a focus on what you are doing. For me personally it would create a spark with what I am doing.

The final design

The final design is a coherent family of artefacts that work together with a 3D modelling program (for now it still is an animation of the teamwork) This controllers for 3D-modeling help you to easily iterate your designs. It lets you experience the design you are making on the computer, in real life. With help of the tools you can adjust your created designs. The tools are not there to create the shapes or materials, but there to adjust the shapes you created and to try out different materials, colours etc.

I chose to work with the blue colour of my house style to make the designs recognizable as my designs. But also because blue is a colour that everywhere in the world has the same associations ‘strong, trustworthy, power’. Wood is a material almost every designer likes. It is trustworthy (assignment Tactile experience) and beautiful. The wood has its own structure creating all unique artefacts. Which is a poetic result as they are all meant for unique designers. The roundness of the designs makes them soft, not forcing you. To make the design coherent all tools are created with the same shape families. The shapes are also chosen based on the interaction. i.e. when you make something round people are more likely to turn it around, another example is the round colour picker, it looks like a palette which is associated with the interaction that you should perform.

Why should people want it?

The designs hand you a variety of movements that fit the human needs. Resulting in a less boring interaction that reduces hand problems because of the long computer work. It also gives you the right distraction, resulting in more focus. i.g. When you clay or trying out many materials within your design you are still designing and there might be creative input, when you surf on the internet and refresh Facebook twenty times there is not.

The devices are easy to understand and can therefore create more fruitful collaborations. You are better able to communicate what you do and others can try it which improves the team spirit and understanding.

Because you can experience the size and especially the materials you are better able to make well thought through decisions resulting in being more confident and applicable results.

Which tools?

The material collectionScale and turnColour picker3D scanner (and material uploader)

** Note that a second selection of these tools should be made**Material collection

16 17

How do the tools work?

The ‘material collection’ is a collection of many different materials. You can feel and experience the material and afterwards scan the RFID sticker on the material to use the material in your design. (on the selected part of the design)

The ‘Scale and turn’ is the tangible depiction of the design (the part you selected). You put the ‘starting size’ in clay on top and press SHIFT. Adding and subtracting clay makes the design grow or reduce by means of percentage. turning the whole ‘scale and turn’ tool turns the design on the screen (in any direction)

The colour picker and the 3D scanner are only a visual representation of the working objects

How should the tools work?

Material collectionThe materials that are available within solidWorks should be in a database. You can accumulate different materials and material structures and place your own (from solidWorks) bought RFID sticker on it. The RFID can be connected with a material from the database (which can be downloaded). You as solidWorks community have

the ability to add the outlook and reactions of materials to the database.

Scale and turnThe scale and turn should become a scale, not a scale and turn. The weight can determine the size of the object and the flatness (stretchiness of the clay) should determine the growth in width (when you choose for this).

Colour pickerThe colour picker has a brush, the pressure from the brush on the paint determines how much paint is on the brush. The brush changes colour accordingly (the height of the colour is how much colour is on it). In the middle of the palette is a small screen. On the screen the colours can be mixed until the preferred colour is created. This colour is uploaded as ‘swatch’ by double tapping it and is deleted from the palette by triple tapping it. his way of interaction is chosen as eventually you also have to mix the paint in the real world. There is a colour conversion between RGB and CMYK because you work with a screen.

3D scannerThe 3D scanner scans an everyday object and creates a solid object version of this scan on the screen. This object can be used for shape inspiration but has no material thickness (solid). A material thickness is necessary in solidWorks to create simulations and real life designs. Colour picker

18 19

3D scanner Scale and turn

20 21

ProcessIn the following pages the process to come to the final design of the 3Do kit will be discussed. This process can be divided in:

Exploring movements and materialsReading papersDefinitionDirection and ideationRelativizeUser research and the final ideaExploring technologyExploring shape and interactionFinal prototype

Process & small reflections242830323436404248

22 23Process

E

xploration materials

Exploratio

n m

ater

ials in combination with m

ovem

ents

Reading

pap

aper

s about shape changing interfaces

Exploration movements

Defenition

Cla

y --> magnetic clay

Id

eas: Design tool

Ideas: Art

Ideas: Transportation

What is

already there?

N

ew co

ncept (controller, design)

Cl

ayin

g and talking to users

Exp

lora

tio

n forms and interactions

Final prototype

Expl

orat

io

n technology for prototype

24 25

The initial approach of the project was exploring. Starting with an qualitative experiment on movement. Starting with a comfortable quiet location (which is the same for all participants to exclude the influence of the location. The experiment was Introduced. Participants signed the consent form (Apendix B). A briefing of the expectations was given and the execution started. Afterwards the participants were debriefed.

The execution consisted of letting the participants find the depiction of contrast poles in the category Energy.

The role of the observer here is: being a mediator in the discussion, asking questions to start a discussion, notating the first movement and explanation of it and the final discussed movement.

3x2 non- design- participants Discussing 10 word pairsDuration: an hour

ConclusionPeople associate movements with real life situations like a happy dog and try to recreate those movements. Many words are associated with the same movements, the only real difference is between the contrasting words.

Movements are not very communicative when adding little context and wanting to show small differences. This is surprising as most of our communication is body language (movement). Apparently making this communication conscious makes us interpret less of the movements.

The perception of the movements can change when adding a different material to the movement. Therefore

Exploring materials and movements

26 27

results will become more useful when testing with the final material and within a context.

The execution of my test was different from the one of my fellow group members (testing another category, we combined the results). In the test I was the mediator and aimed for a discussion. Resulting in results with more depth and a ‘why’. The others asked one of the participants to explain a word with a movement and let the other participant guess. Both experiments are valuable but with such abstract context I believe mine had more valuable results. The reliability of my test however is less as you need a mediator. The mediator can influence the participants with its questions. To improve on my test I should prepare the way I ask the questions beforehand.

Material research

Another way of exploring is collecting materials and looking at their abilities. Therefore materials were explored. The materials were classified based on their flexibility in different directions. I learned to knit and to crochet to explore with different structures in the materials. The material mostly inspired me to explore what materials there are and what the feel of those materials is. Thinking practically, a shape changing interface for in the

kitchen for instance should not have holes but be water proof. What materials could achieve that? (Silicone)

The next step would be combining the movements with the materials. As I did not have an idea of what would happen when I combined them; I set up the first experiment to just note what happens. An box to put around the ‘ghost’ to easily test the materials was thought of. I decided to not go through with this experiment as I had found my direction and the exploration did not give me enough input (in relation with the time it takes).

I love to explore but like to do this further in the process. The exploration does not give me inspiration when searching for context or direction but is my inspiration within a direction. Reading papers and vivid discussions are the source of inspiration that fit me. With an research attitude I tend to be inspired by opinions and other ideas. And with my curious and stubborn personality I am not afraid to oppose the direction it seems to be going in. Creating an extrovert design.

28 29

To get an idea of what shape changing interfaces are about many papers were read. But no clear definition of a shape changing interface can be found. Therefore I defined a shape changing interface for myself.

The most interesting paper I read is ‘radical atoms’ not only focussing on a specific shape changing interface but focussing on the different kinds of interfaces there can be. The ‘radical atoms’ interface stands out to me. Although it is not yet achieved (there are a lot of examples in the paper) it inspired me to search for a material that consists of extremely small (influencable) parts. The material I came up with is clay. But clay on itself cannot be influenced by the digital world. Eventually I found magnetic clay, clay infused with extremely small magnetic parts, this material is influencable by magnets.

Reading papers

30 31

As there is no clear set of properties for shape changing interfaces defined, I defined those of my own.

A shape changing interface is an interface that has at least two parts moving apart from each other; or one part that can differ in size (= form). It must be able to move manually as well as automated and must always be able to go back to its original shape. Lastly the deformation must be perceptual by feeling and therefore tangible.

Most existing (experimental) shape changing interfaces now are either very big, working with air pressure; need cameras to interpret physical movements from the user; or they exist of tiny parts moving apart from each other.

The last of the examples above, many tiny parts moving, fits my aim of shape changing interface best. It is most convenient as it has a myriad of possibilities in creating different shapes and movements.

It would be the ultimate goal to make those parts as small as possible but still influenceable.

Definition

Theory behind the definitionA shape changing interface is an interface that can deform but this property is not enough as many of the existing technologies already deform. (e. g. a pillow, LCD screens)

The pillow can only deform manually, a shape changing interface should also be able to deform by itself (automated). But it also should be able to deform more than once --> go back to its original shape.

An LCD screen may deform manually and automated but the deformation is so small it cannot be felt. The deformation must therefore be tangible.

Deformation can arise from more than one moving part and a material covering those parts creating one deformable object. When having many on itself movable parts integrated in ONE surface it therefore also makes it a shape changing interface.

32 33

The magnetic clay direction leads to three main ideas.

Transportation (teleportation) of shapes. As you can read out the magnetic field (theoretically) and use this read out values of this field to recreate the field around another piece of clay (same weight) and this piece of clay will form itself according to the field. Resulting in the same shape as the first shape (where the field was read out).

Direction and ideation

Design tool

To co-design shapes with companies, design experts and non-design users. Through a platform the designs are shared and improved, design proposals can be made by non-designers. Working visually is very important to explain those proposals. Claying is an accessible means to visualize. (More about this idea in the assignment report for co-creation)

Art

To create artworks together with a neighbourhood that stay representable for the neighbourhood.Everyone has a device where you can clay and upload a part of the artwork, being translated immediately by an magnetic field.

34 35

After looking for possible contexts it was necessary to asses the feasibility and the value of the ideas.

By letting people clay I concluded that there should be some sort of auto-correction on the models. Many people do not have the ability to clay very detailed. With the human creative brain we can see what the clayed objects are meant to be. A computer however does not have fantasy. The communication therefore will not necessarily be improved.

The magnetic clay is very soft, attracting itself as well as other magnets or iron. This makes the clay also change shape by itself. (This could however be an interesting behaviour)

The magnetic field can be read out, this idea was reinforced by Peter peters (technology expert). But it is a very hard task to achieve.

The value of reading out an magnetic field and recreating it is at the same time diminished. There are 3D printers that print clay, and 3D scanners that can scan the clayed objects.

RelativizeLooking into jewellery that changes shape because of the magnetic fluid. Companies where you can make your own vase with hand movements and the clay sessions with other designers inspired me again to come up with a new idea going further on the ‘design tool’ idea.

Looking into what is out there concerning clay is something I did not think of before. I therefore value the group more and more. I believe the best way to work is working on your own expertise within a multidisciplinary team. With a group of people with the same expertise as you to fall back on for advice. This way you do not only share your ideas continuously gathering valuable input but also make an optimal use of teams. With a team you can work out the ideas and concepts further as you have more resources.

Although I used my ‘group of experts’ well for this I would like to become more clear in explaining my ideas from the beginning onward, as my ideas sometimes lacked clarity. I believe that bringing what keeps me busy (e. g. explorations) will be a good step towards this, as experience makes something easier to understand for other people. This can also help me to create a more in depth report by for instance showing calculations as well as conclusions. Last semester I did not explain my ideas at all and I now see I missed this extremely valuable input.

36 37

Apart from the user research done to relativize also some co-thinking sessions were set up. In those sessions I assessed the opportunities together with other students. The idea of a controller arose.

I combined the controller with a design modelling tool. Guided by my vision I designed a first version of a tool kit. Including a tool that changes shape. The shape of this tool is manually changed and controls the design on the computer. Seven tools would be making the life of a designer more interesting and easier.

After the first design of the tools I made a selection of the in my opinion more valuable tools. Those tools fitted my vision best and had added value by adding new options to 3D design or making an interaction more intuitive.

To learn more about 3D modelling I talked to several students that use 3D modelling software. I concluded that the tools should not be there to design an object in 3D but rather to manipulate it.

3D modelling software has different purposes, Rhino is to design nice looking 3D objects for computer usage.

User research and the final ideaWhereas SolidWorks is there to design objects to be crafted in the real world. The difference is that Rhino does not need a material thickness and solidWorks does. Therefore the tools are there to support the craft of 3D modelling, not interfering with the strengths of the programs.

I performed most of my user research as discussions and conversations. I did this user research in an informal way. Although I have shown that I can do it formally (qualitative research which still need conformation by quantitative research). I prefer the informal research as it inspires and lets people react more naturally (no clinical circumstances).But I see the value in doing quantitative and qualitative research.

Within the study of industrial design qualitative research is mostly the easier solution as we want to know the why and it takes less time than quantitative research (see USE learning line project). To support my academic attitude I want to involve the user on an academic supported way including the conversations. I want to do this by organizing an co-design session in the beginning of the semester. Later on doing research through design (testing interactions).

38 39

40 41

To achieve the final prototype (of the scale and turn) technological decisions had to be made. Initially the idea was to use the magnetic clay and a capacitive sensor to determine how much clay is on the device.

The capacitive sensor is not reliable as it reacts to your computer and hands as well.

Learning moment: Magnetic clay does not conduct electricity. (Magnets do not conduct electricity, the shiny layer the magnet is coated with does)

Therefore the capacitive sensor does not work.

Working with coils and the magnetic clay does not work either (not specific enough).

For the turning part I experimented with hacking a servo. It turns out a 360 degrees servo cannot be hacked as it does not work with a potential meter. A servo was interesting as it can also change its own position (feedback).

A potentiometer however does only turn 180 degrees. Therefore I thought of a mechanical solution that works

Exploring technologytogether with the potentiometer. When you have two gears where one is half the size of the other and you connect the small gear to the potentiometer and the big gear to the turning plate (see sketch at page 39) the plate can turn 380 degrees. The potentiometer receives values which can be translated to the position of the pate.

The gears however are extremely heavy and therefore make the design hard to handle.

A rotary encoder would be my next step. But before I could start working with the rotary encoder I went to the experts at the electronics lab (students electrical engineering). Together we discussed a way to measure the change in clay and how this could be measured: A scale and a HX711 chip. With the scale I had to leave out the change in stretch (= change in shape) as it was not achievable without a camera (which I did not want as it makes the design less movable, uglier and more expensive to produce). A accelerate-gyro sensor to measure the position also the tilt (not only the turn of the upper plate). The rotary encoder interfered with the scale as the upper-plate is now connected with the scale. it is also unnecessary to turn only the upper plate apart from the rest of the object.

42 43

To explore different interactions and shapes for the designs. Using the same font families to create a coherent final design.I based my final choices on the looks and the interaction. The interaction should be intuitive and easy to understand without explanation. At the same time the interaction should make it easier, not harder. e.g. colours can be made by putting colour over colour (low opacity colours) but those colours are less reliable than the computer colours (although the interaction is more interesting and resulting in better knowledge about colours)

I explored with different sizes of the design and picked the one that felt best for such device. By exploring the design matured and I practiced my exploratory sketching.

Unlike the exploring in the beginning I loved exploring with shapes, interactions and technology. It made me understand technology and interactions better, making it valuable for me. Not only what the possibilities of technology are but also the working of sensors (they all tend to work the same way) sending in the same kind of values. The programming part (reading part) is the most interesting.

Exploring shape and interaction

To get proof of concept it is extremely important to test or model with social theories (assignment complexity through simplicity) to back up your claims and assumptions. Because of time related issues I was not able to make all different interactions and test them. I want to definitely do this in the future as testing excludes the wrong assumptions and leads to a more plausible design.

I also want to test in the interaction phase as I find this a very interesting phase. In my vision I describe the importance of interaction. A research through design project fits me. Therefore researching the interaction and writing a scientific paper about it would be a great learning opportunity. It improves my testing skills, the involvement of the user and my academic writing skills.

44 45

Determining size Shape

46 47

48 49

More about the final prototype can be found in the ‘3DO kit’ part of the report.

The final prototype is the result of my throughout the process gained knowledge.

The technology within the ‘Scale and turn’ consists of two sensors the accelerate-gyro meter and a scale. The scale I made myself by breaking down a scale from the action and using the HX711 chip to connect it to the Arduino.

I worked with Arduino libraries and processing to get the prototype working (visualizing the working). To program this I had to learn about Arduino libraries and how to use them correctly. I manipulated the examples and created my own design, which I completely understand. But this was not possible without the help of several technology experts.

I know now that the information of an Arduino is communicated in bytes. A float (which is a point number) for instance consists of 8 bytes. Learning about this made me realize that I want to know the how and why. The complexity behind a design interests me as

Final prototypeunderstanding the complexity makes me competent in using the technology myself. Understanding the language of a library enables you to change it towards a library that fits your personal use.

To become a good programmer you should understand the language, structure and know where to find knowledge. To learn more about the basics (the why and how) I will follow the course ‘ how things work’ at Carnegie Mellon University next semester.

The working with Arduino and Processing cost me a lot of time as I am not a good enough programmer yet. The fight I had with the clock is remarkable when looking at the design. Within this major we are pushed to always want more and never be done. For me it is sometimes very hard to be happy with were I got within the time span. But looking at the time I believe I surpassed myself. Making an extensive planning half way through the semester made me aware of what activities I prioritize. Programming was one of the most time consuming ones.

I’ve made at least 17 iterations within the Processing code. The final code can be found in Appendix C.

50 51

Final technology material mistake

52 53

Evaluation of the design

By making the final design I became a better crafter. The design looks professional, but this comes with a cost. To make a professionally looking design a lot of time should be planned for it. I am not totally satisfied with the finishing and I can improve upon this. (Some circles are not completely round and the paint does not look flawless)

Within the making of the final design I also made some mistakes regarding materials. The perspex reacted differently to the bending as I anticipated upon: it broke. A thinner version (1 mm) eventually did the trick. I should know my materials before using them. Ironically this is something I promote with my design but did not do myself. It was only a minor mistake but it caused a lot of stress. Eventually resulting in a 3th degree burn wound (of trying to get the paint dry with a industrial paint dryer) I want to have time to make a mistake next time, this will result in a more satisfying end result.

I managed to get the RFID reader working, reading out a code to match a material. Unfortunately I did not have time to connect this code with Processing.

54 55

To asses the final design I made a value proposition. This value proposition can be found within the ‘3DO kit’ part of the report.

The final design fits my vision, more over can be found within the ‘3DO kit’ part of the report. The final design however does not fit my definition of a shape changing interface.

My design did fit my definition of shape changing interfaces throughout the process. Within the earlier concepts the clay also changed its own shape (for instance as autocorrect). I left the autocorrect out because people do not clay an object anymore. Autocorrect is also very difficult to achieve as we can see fast what a clayed object is because of our fantasy but the computer does not have fantasy nor is it creative. Within this iteration I did not see how shape change was an added value, so I left it out. Resulting in a design that fits my vision but not my definition of a shape changing interface. I decided not to change my definition (you do manually change the shape of the interface), as I was satisfied with the definition. The definition makes

Discussion & next stepssure we actually strive for a new interaction; if I changed the definition a lot of existing designs would fit within my definition. I now see an opportunity again to add this shape change e. g. When you select another object the clay and turn should also change.

When assessing the tools with help of the value proposition I believe a new selection should be made. The material collector and the scale (not the turn) have more value than the other designs. The material experience is something that is actually missing from digital designing.

The other designs might be interesting for people that are not designers and not familiar with computer 3D modelling, as a more intuitive design. Therefore within my user group I should make another selection. (Containing the ’Material’ collection and an adjusted ‘Scale and turn’)

With the scale and turn I would like to add that if you flatten the clay the object will stretch in width, this way the clay is more of an added value. Now it is nice ‘therapy’ for your hands as a distraction and just an easy changeable material (that can be added in any quantity).

If the stretch is added I see the scale also as an added value, and a better fit for a shape changing interface. The stretch adds a new intuitive layer, the thinner the object gets the thinner the design gets. But mostly you get a feeling of how big something really is (you set your initial size, and how much bigger you make it). A lot of designers (at least at ID) miss these insights.

Testing the concept and interactions would have made the design more plausible, this would have resulted in a even more matured project. The tests to confirm the assumptions I made should be performed in the future.

The mission statement of the department is ‘designing intelligent products, systems and services in a societal context’. This is the first time I think about intelligence, triggered by the assignment Complexity through simplicity (emergence). I believe my vision on Ghost is very much about intelligence and emergence but in my design I cannot find this intelligence.

My definition of intelligence: A product, service of system with an apparent behaviour. This behaviour can be created by a smart device, learning over time, or by emotional

triggers making us feel the device reacts to us personally.

To integrate this in my project the design should think with you, learn about your preferred materials etc. To show you ‘its’ thoughts it should be able to out these as physical feedback.

To do this the 3DO kit should be able to change its shape itself. In the future there should be looked into how the shape of the clay for instance can be changed.

Next semester I should think about this more consciously.

The ‘Scale and turn’ does not work the way it is supposed to, tilting the object changes the centre of gravity resulting in a change in the scale. Therefore a solution should be thought of for a future prototype.

The next steps within my design process would be:- Writing a new prototype proposal- Contact SolidWorks (and before the TU/e experts on how I can do this best)- Make a testable version of the prototype

56 57

Evaluation of the proces

Within the process I started exploring from the beginning. I realized that this is a good way to get to know new materials and immediately start doing. But it does not inspire my creative brain.

Therefore I would propose another process. Starting with reading papers and looking at what is out there (interactions and products within the research direction) and define what those are used for. This to enable me to word my own vision on what the next step should be in relation to the research. This would give me a clear outlook on what I want to achieve and how to evaluate my designs. Afterwards I would dive into the materials and the designs that are out there coming up with concepts. In a co-design session with the target group (academic level user involvement instead of discussions) I would discuss those concepts and pick out one to work out. Exploring forms, interactions and technology, as here the exploration fits me again. I want to quantitatively ‘research through design’ the interactions and write an academic paper about it. Eventually combining the results to create the final prototype.

Reflection

This way I can combine an academic attitude of research, data collection and truly knowing with my preferred approach of discussing and creative assessing. I want to know the how and why. The complexity behind a design interests me as understanding the complexity makes me competent in using the technology myself. This semester I found out this preferred approach was.

My skills in creating a mature and in depth concept improved extremely. A design approach and process that fits me became clear. Although I struggled with time management because of my drive to constantly challenge myself I found a way to satisfy myself by relating what I do to the time I spent doing it.

I could improve upon this project by doing research on the interaction and writing an academic paper. My design could also improve by adding intelligence and making a second selection. In depth reflections about improvements can be read in re report.

58 59

References

Auger, J. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24(1) (2013), 11–35.

Bleecker, J. Design Fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction.Near Future Laboratory29 (2009).

Candy, S.The Futures of Everyday Life. Diss. PhD dissertation. HI: Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 2010.

Dunne, A., and Raby, F., Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press, 2013.

Follmer,S.,Leithinger,D.,Olwal,A.,Hogge,A.,and Ishii, H. inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation. In UIST ’13, ACM (2013), 417-426.

IDEO,I.MethodCards:51WaystoInspireDesign. Palo Alto, 2003.

Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L., & Labrune, J. B., Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions, 19(1), (2012), 38- 51.

Rasmussen, M.K., Pedersen, E.W., Petersen, M.G., and

Hornbæk, K. Shapechanging interfaces: a review of the design space and open research questions. In CHI’12, ACM (2012), 735-744.

Sellen, A., Rogers, Y., Harper, R., and Rodden, T. Reflecting human values in the digital age. Communications of the ACM 52(3) (2009), 58-66.

Stienstra, J., Bruns Alonso, M., Wensveen, S., & Kuenen, S. How to design for transformation of behavior through interactive materiality. In Proceedings of NordiCHI’12 ACM (2012), 21-30.

Wensveen, S. A.G., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of DIS’04 ACM (2004), 177-184

Kwak, M., Hornbaek, K., Markopoulos, P., Bruns Alonso, M., The design space of shape-changing interfaces: a repertory grid study (2014)

Kwak, M., Frens, J. W., From Movement to Mechanism: Exploring Expressive Movement Qualities in Shape-change (2015)

Vallgarda, A., Giving form to computational things:

60 61

developing a practice of interaction design (2014)

https://vimeo.com/63591283, visited 18 februari 2015

https://vimeo.com/79179138, visited 18 februari 2015

https://vimeo.com/63494095, visited 18 februari 2015

http://ghostfet-prod.cs.bris.ac.uk/news/, visited regularly (16 februari 2015, 9 March 2015, 19 March 2015 - 2 May)

Kennet Bastrup Jeppesen, Understanding Spatial Shape-Changing Interfaces, Aarhus University (year not listed)

David Møller Andersen, Shape-Changing Interfaces: Viscosity - Learning and Exploring Through Making Aarhus University (year not listed)

Thank you for reading.

A special thank you to my coach Meerthe Heuvelings and my fellow group members for the guidance and the vivid discussions.

Sincerely,Michelle