« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 27, 2005
Letter Frequency Chart
Posted by rus200 at 04:35 PM
February 23, 2005
Poster
Posted by rus200 at 04:38 PM
February 21, 2005
BOO! Game Documentation
Description:
For our pair assignment, Nick and I made a game that was as simple as possible. We devised a game which used a minimum of inputs and outputs.
The object is to get the fastest time possible when responding to a “Boo” sent by your opponent. When you are on defense, a light (triggered by the button on your opponent’s console) will light up and you must press your button as soon as you can. Then you are on offense and when you press your button your opponent’s Boo light lights and he has to respond. Then response times are compared and the round’s winner is determined. After 5 rounds have been played, the game is over. The game is played on two identical consoles connected via the internet.
Input/Output:
State Diagram:
Results:
Our prototype works and the game is fun. As one is waiting for the light to light, attention is focused and tension runs high. However, a sturdier console is needed. The button needs to be mounted in something so it can be hit. Also, to add to the surprise, the Boo light should be bigger and brighter, perhaps paired with a buzzer.
****
Nick's documentation can be seen here.
Posted by rus200 at 11:06 PM
Location Based Reading Response
With the exception of the game-oriented projects, these examples of location-based media seemed highly experimental. What I mean is, with most of the projects, the purpose is not entirely clear. The two projects I found most impressive, Tapestries and UCSD ActiveCampus, had vaguest goals. However, they worked to build a powerful system in which many different kinds of activities could emerge. I would be curious to hear from the users what they get out of the system.
The artistic projects, such as GPS drawing and Sonic City are clever. The idea of augmenting reality sonically is interesting. However, judging from the video on the website, the overall effect does not seem artistically satisfactory—the users do not seem very impressed. I could see how the system could be annoying.
This GPS drawing blows my mind:
Posted by rus200 at 09:59 PM
February 09, 2005
Visual Attributes
Accent Vs. Neutrality
Balance Vs. Instability
Predictability Vs. Spontaneity
Posted by rus200 at 06:07 PM
Typography Examples
Posted by rus200 at 03:21 PM
February 08, 2005
Reading Response 2
With the exception of the caffeine projects, boundaries were crossed. In the BBC project, users were able to interact from the street, through the window, and with the BBC. With Alzado, blinkenlights, and SimpleTEXT audience members were allowed to participate in a performance. The line between performer and audience was breached with technology.
The caffeine projects were more about distributing information. They differed from traditional internet applications in that they required physical computing to gather data. The information needed was held in the physical world, e.g. how much coffee was available was indicated by the amount of coffee in the pot. Physical computing devices, a video camera for example, were needed to translate this information into electronic form. The internet could then distribute the information.
Posted by rus200 at 12:50 PM
February 01, 2005
Reading notes
This is a mostly theoretical paper. It sets out to illustrate the author’s design process which can be loosely summed up as Observation-Invention. They perform “rapid ethnographic studies”; that is, they interview and observe potential users. Next, they create characters and brainstorm scenarios (around 40) to discover places where technology could be useful. Then they move into a prototype/evaluation phase.
Given the examples of projects that came out of this project, I’m not convinced that the design process advocated here is better than the vision/intuition model that the authors frequently deride. I thought the devices in the other paper where more interesting and their creative process did not seem so involved.
The paper starts off explaining that devices that indicate the availability of coworkers should be indicated only in the periphery of the users awareness. Also, the indicator should not be running on the computer--it could be obstructed by another open window and also some people do not work on the computer. I thought the devices were clever, better than those in the other paper. I especially liked the doll that faced the wall when a coworker was not in the office and faced the room when he was present. Also, the video-conferencing device seemed like it could actually be quite useful, a good way to mix privacy with communication.
Posted by rus200 at 02:50 PM