About my blog
I am multithreaded, and sometimes the threads get tangled.
- December 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (2)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (6)
- February 2009 (5)
- January 2009 (3)
a Studiolab production.
the wind I am enjoying
Posted in 2009
terribly interesting: How to explain UX research to normal people
I have made a Flickr account for myself. The pictures will occasionally be relevant to design or TUDelft activities.
I have started obsessing about the coolness of Nodebox2, a programming-for-designers tool made by the cool dudes of the Sint Lucas School of Arts in Antwerp. It looks like a dataflow, boxes-and-arrows language, in reality it is kind of functional. It is immediately useful if you are in 2D graphic, and conceptually very interesting if you like to think about different models of programming.
The Food Design pilot class is over, and in 2010 we (Annemiek van Boeijen and I) will do a full blown elective for 25 lucky students.
We celebrated the end of 2009 with (of course) a Surprise Dinner, where all the dishes had to be surprising. Without going into detail, I can tell you that finding silver Christmas tree balls (decorated with messages) into the salad was surprising indeed. In the photograph, Puck is juggling the message balls with absolute concentration.
The Interactive Architecture Minor is going strong, just today Aadjan and I visited them and we were awed by the massive, scarily mobile structures the kiddies are building. This is the view that greets you when you enter the Minor zone at the Delft Science Center.
Interaction Design Lab nicely made a Flickr page with a selection of their shots of the exhibition.
the catalog of the exhibition came out very nice! This is the cover
We have taken 2 ITD projects, TATE and KeyPing, to the Intel Design Expo, an event associated with the Intel Developer Forum 2009. The event takes place in San Francisco, but you would not be able to tell, since the Intel Design Expo took place in the bowels of the Marriott Hotel: a vaste expanse of carpet where we, and other design schools, installed our cool stuff. The show was organized and run by Joy Mountford, whose long and fruitful career in designing interfaces and interaction is too long to summarize here.
In a previous post, I had spouted endless technotrivia on how to connect an Arduino to a FoxBoard Linux SBC. As one German former student of mine, you could ask "but vy?". This is the why: building the world biggest networked computer controlled IKEA hack lamp. Soon to be installed in the central hall of the Industrial Design building at TUDelft.
The lamp is an idea of Daniel Saakes, brought into physical reality by Aadjan van der Helm, Aditya Pawar, Sterre van der Helm and yours truly, with the usual fundamental collaboration of Rob Luxen. This lamp is made up of 92 individual IKEA lamps, wired as 12 groups (corresponding to the faces of a dodecahedron), plus two more groups for additional lamps placed on the vertices and one group that contains one, solitary, bulb on the inside of the lamp. You can consider it a baroque evolution of the original Big lamps from IKEA Lampan lamps idea.
Here are some photos of the work in progress
This is the lamp at an advanced stage of construction. Notice that the caps are not yet on the individual lamps, and there is overall lumpiness. Not yet sweetly polyhedral.
after plenty of work, here it is, looking much better. Thomasz is inspecting the innards, perhaps a little too close for comfort.
This is the lamp, powered up, in its temporary hanging location in the basement of industrial design.
and a closeup shows the gnarly internal structure, and part of the wiring.
The lamp’s internal FoxBoard queries a service, written as a python server in the Google App Engine environment. The server produces a configuration message that contains the new state of the lamp (that is, which groups are on and which are off). The FoxBoard then writes out the message to an Arduino over USB: the Arduino, in turn, squirts it out to two shift register circuits that present their outputs to optoisolators. The optoisolators separate the low voltage side of the system from the 220 V side, and drive the lamps.
The system is built around the fundamental limitations of compact fluorescent lamps: they are not easy to dim, and they don’t like being switched on and off frequently. Hence, the configuration will be pulled infrequently, perhaps once every ten minutes.
The Google App Engine server has been built on top of my (currently in progress) SERPE service prototyping environment.
In August everybody is lazy, so I will just publish
three five links
- A fantastic periodic table of information visualization. Techniques organized to show their relationship, with examples for each one.
- You cannot innovate like Apple. Apple is the canonical example of all that is good in the design of interactive things. But it looks like their process is not something you can grab and apply somewhere else. Not unless you manage to clone Steve Jobs and a few other key people. More about it here.
- Ivan Krstić‘s blog. Cool guy, worked at OLPC, now is in Apple.
- Just so you don’t forget how nerdy I can be, playing around with ChucK looks damn good right now. Regardless of the fact that I have managed to pack my schedule full from now to Christmas. Anyway, it is a Strongly-timed, Concurrent, and On-the-fly Audio Programming Language, and if that does not get you excited, I don’t know what will
- Oh, and I was reminded -by the resourceful Saakes- of Hypershot, "the first digital camera for your data", very fancy rendering, apparently not too difficult to use. Maybe I will give it a spin inside Computer Visualization.
There you go. Enjoy your summer sun, if you are in the right latitudes and you happen to actually like unfiltered solar radiation. I am also including a gratuitous picture of happy users
this is what happens at TUDelft industrial design when there is a fire alarm: people rescue their laptops, stream out of the building, hook up to the wireless and continue work. You could argue that we don’t really need a building, just a lot of grassy knolls with some power sockets here and there.
Suppose you have a sketch loaded on your Arduino, and suppose that you need some serial communication. You try it out on your Windows box, and all is happiness. Then you attach the cable to the Foxboard (a single board computer running Linux) and nothing works anymore. Why?
Because apparently the default settings of the serial port are wrong for your purposes.
To set the serial port your way, you have to use the wonderful stty command, something that our hairy ancestors used to do when setting up terminals in the Lascaux caves. First of all, run the dmesg command. You will see lots of stuff, and at the end you should see something like this
crisv10_irq dbg: ctr_status_irq, controller status: host_mode started
crisv10_irq dbg: ctr_status_irq, controller status: host_mode started running
usb 1-1: new full speed USB device using hc-crisv10 and address 4
ftdi_sio 1-1:1.0: FTDI USB Serial Device converter detected
drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c: Detected FT232BM
usb 1-1: FTDI USB Serial Device converter now attached to ttyUSB0
This means that the USB serial converter in the Arduino is recognized, the driver has been loaded, and the Arduino is mapped by ttyUSB0. I have marked in bold the most important part. It mans that the Arduino’s serial port is now available as the /dev/ttyUSB0 file, for reading and writing.
To see the current configuration of the port type stty -F /dev/ttyUSB0
[root@vdhelm1 /dev]118# stty -F /dev/ttyUSB0
speed 9600 baud;
This is a quite typical configuration, good for controlling your UNIX minicomputer from a VT100 terminal, and if we were on a time machine to Dr. Who land it would be probably the perfect configuration. For our purposes, though, we need to dumb it down a bit.
I have noticed that to make things work "like on Windows" I have to kill the local echo. This is done with the command
stty -F /dev/ttyUSB0 -echo
and then things work pretty nicely. Send stuff to the Arduino like this:
echo "whatever" >/dev/ttyUSB0
and see on screen what the Arduino is sending back like this:
extra info: if things work strangely, or don’t work at all, one reason can be that your application on the Foxboard side is sending out the right stuff, but the terminal is not sending it to the Arduino because it is in "canonical" mode. Canonical mode means, among other things, that information is sent one line at a time – which really made a lot of sense for controlling printers. But it may be that you need your data to reach the Arduino as soon as you send it. Additionally, binary protocol data cannot really be divided in "lines". What you want is a device that will just shoot stuff out on the wire as soon as you send it. To get just that, you need to put your device in "raw" mode.
[root@vdhelm1 /mnt/flash/root]116# stty raw -F /dev/ttyUSB0
[root@vdhelm1 /mnt/flash/root]116# stty -F /dev/ttyUSB0
speed 9600 baud;
min = 1; time = 0;
-brkint -icrnl -imaxbel
the parts in bold are the ones you type. Without delving too much in the output of stty, notice that "raw" is actually a macro for a bunch of configuration options. The "-" means NOT, so these are all character processing options having been switched off. If you want to find out why this whole wacky tty mess exists, and why it makes a sort of sense (historical, at any rate), there is a great page about The TTY demistified.
caveat: if, by mistake, you set your current tty to raw mode, things will become very funny indeed. Time to get another tty 🙂
My colleague Thomas likes to quote a professor of his as being very happy whenever his students designed an interactive object in the form of a glowing cube, because this meant that the cube had been done and that the real design could start. I guess that it is always a strong temptation, having to do in part with science fiction imagery, such as the Borg cube
the Borg, being an entirely rational race, make cubic spaceships because they are not concerned with aerodynamics. Since these cubes will never enter an atmosphere, they can be cuboid and covered with fiddly little appendages. When they feel like doing something wild, they make a spherical spaceship.
On the other hand, if a human designs a cubic object, particularly if it is supposed to be grabbed by someone, it is a safe bet that he is a taking an easy way out and neglecting thought. Just try to remember how many perfectly cubical objects you know. Not many, right?
- dice, cubic so that they can fall on each side with the same probability
- Rubik’s Cube, cubic for gameplay reason
- the Power Mac Cube, that was not really a cube
- the Borg cubes (already discussed, and you are not designing for the Borg anyway)
- the Weighted Companion Cube in the videogame Portal, designed to weird you out with its cubic yet loving inexpressiveness
- silly MP3 players from 2 years ago
- frankly stupid cube shaped clocks that go out of their way to make reading the time difficult
…one runs out of presentable examples pretty fast. And that is because a cube is not such a good form to hold in your hand: first of all it is pointy, and secondly it makes sense only if all its faces are equally significant and work well by being exactly the same size. It is not strange that there are very few cubes around us, while there are millions of objects that are bricks, tablets, slabs, and thin plates: their asimmetry has a reason, while the cube’s peculiar and extreme simmetry is just … a form. Real world objects have a good end and a bad end, a business end and a handle end, a top and a bottom, a front and a back. Their sides specialize, to a degree, just like animals – notice that most higher animals are symmetric only on one plane.
Cubes, on the other hand, have no favorite resting position. Each side is equally good.
These are MP3 players and sharing devices, whose designer I will not mention, and they are really wrong. They offer no use cues: are you supposed to shake them, squeeze them, press them or put them one close to the other? Or eat them with a fine Chianti? Why do they glow, other than they can be made to glow? The bland cube, in its simmetry, is rivaled only by the blander sphere (or egg).
These (horribly boring by now) glowing LED spheres make some sort of sense, because they are hand sized, meant to be grabbed and I bet that you have to squeeze them to switch them on and off. And this is about the only meaningful interaction you can have with a featureless sphere, other than throwing it at people and small animals. The moment you want to add more interactions, though, you will suddenly realize that the sphere is the wrong shape.
The sphere’s best buddy is the egg. Nicely aerodynamic and archetipal, it is a very good shape for containing a baby chicken and making kitchen timers. Oh, and chocolate eggs. And debatable USB minipicture frames distributed by Brando. Here on the side you can see probably the ugliest MP3 player in the universe, that combines the senseless egg shape with commands on the headphone wire (bad) and an incredible fake marble skin. That’s what I call a clear winner, and a good point to stop rambling.
If you liked this post, you might also like the previous fallacy.
At the Salone del Mobile I visited the rather good Philips Lumiblade stand in the Superstudio area (via Tortona). I left them my contact data, and today they sent me a piece of email and a link, inviting me to obtain the Lumiblade experience kit. The Lumiblade is an OLED light source. Monocromatic, cool to the touch, energy efficient, and still relatively new.
(image grabbed from the Philips email without permission)
I followed the link, and I found out that the bare minimum you have to spend to see the technology on your desk is
70 Euro for the power source
72 Euro for one little white square (30 x 30 mm)
In case you wanted to experiment with colors, you could get 3 small rectangles in red, green and blue for a cool 500 Euro. Of course, plus VAT and postage. Can I give this to students to play with? Not really. Besides, Philips has not yet convinced me that their technology does something that electroluminescent (EL) material can not do…
I understand that OLED is a new technology. But the buyers of these kits are not luxury-chasing consumers: they are the designers and architects that must snag the luxury-chasing consumers – and the schools and universities that train the architects and designers. The analogy here is with the software development kits (SDK) that are necessary to make software for new products. If you make the SDK expensive, the software companies will delay adoption of your new hardware: nobody wants to sink large sums of money into risky new technology. Wise companies that want to push a new technology make SDKs free or almost free (the iPhone SDK, for example, is free). Unwise companies that want to make a quick buck make SDKs very expensive.
Is there ever a case for an expensive DK (or an expensive experience kit, as is the case for the Philips OLED)?
- It makes sense to be expensive if your revenue comes from selling the DK much more than from selling the technology, perhaps because there are many other companies out there doing manufacturing
- It makes sense to be expensive if you are selling such incredibly hot, unique, shit that nobody else has it, and so you can basically squeeze the customers for the product, the developers for the DK and any other stakeholder as much as you want. There are not many businesses like this.
I wonder, is Philips in either of these positions with regards to the OLED light sources?
In the vein of the abstract fallacy, today I point out the magic fallacy. The most typical case is when a project is described in terms similar to these:
the user opens the box, a green light inside it starts pulsating and the user feels a magical feeling
How exactly does this happen? Of course the user does not know why e.g. opening a box and seeing something gives him a magical feeling, but the designer should know. To put it more formally, a designer is not allowed to suppose psychological changes in the user without indicating the psychological means that produce these changes. Of course it is possible to surprise users, to delight them and even to make them feel like magic, but how do you do that? The project description should indicate what psychological mechanism happens. Is it a visual reference to something well-known? Is it a perceptual trick? Is it culture specific?
If you state that Canon’s installation at Salone del Mobile, the enormous NEOREAL piece installed in Triennale, creates a magic feeling through large scale complex geometries in a dimmed room
and the illusion of being in an underwater world where you can interact with glowing jellyfishes
then I believe you. There is no theoretical reason, it is just that, in my model of human behavior and reaction, large scale immersive spaces where a touch of sensorial deprivation is combined with big, sharp biological images in soothing blue DO indeed produce a magical, far-out, slightly hallucinatory feeling. Just like a desser composed of a kiwi, a tangerine and some peanuts produces a vaguely unsatisfying bizarre feeling at the end of lunch.
To fall back on the well known, let ne quote the usual Proust: we are not just told "I ate a little sweet dipped in tea, and I felt incredibly happy." The narrator lets us know exactly what connects the happiness to the food (and also the process by which he finds out the connection). His question
D’où avait pu me venir cette puissante joie? Je sentais q’elle était
liée au goût du thé et du gâteau, mais qu’elle le dépassait infiniment,
ne devait pas être de même nature. D’où venait-elle? Que
signifiait-elle? Où l’appréhender?
in the English translation by C. K. Scott Moncrieff:
Whence could it have come to me, this all-powerful joy? I was conscious
that it was connected with the taste of tea and cake, but that it
infinitely transcended those savours, could not, indeed, be of the same
nature as theirs. Whence did it come? What did it signify? How could I
seize upon and define it?
should also be the designer’s question. I do not deny that a green light pulsating in a box can be a source of magical feelings, but whence the connection? What does this feeling mean? How can we grab it and define it?