designcomputing2020

[designcomputing2020]

A curated list of ideas ans cases of teaching-learning design topics. Useful to collect and choose strategies to engage in remote ways of collaboration in hands-on creative practice.

[designcomputing2020]

Week 4 recap

We started off class with a pretty cool activity which put a lot of stuff into perspective which I thought was pretty awesome. I think my take away from it was that the slightest of changes could make such a big difference which can be seen in everything not just with what we are doing in Uni. It was using random distribution techniques and I thought it was pretty cool I even had someone come up to me after and ask if I had picked him haha Ricardo talked about dos and don'ts. It was a great eye opener especially when reviewing the blog. From now on I know what I need to do. I feel as if I've been doing self reflecting however, there are parts of my post that do relate to don'ts. Either or I'm enjoying this jounery of blogging. I don't think I will do it outside of uni but it has definitely caught me off guard to how much behind the scenes thinking and understanding goes on. It also puts you in a state or certain mindset that trains your mind to pick up on all details.

I loved Ricardo's take on "Dancing with uncertainty". I do find that it is something that really develops ideas and great things come from it. Also working along side undesigned briefs are powerful briefs. I think this class was great it gave feedback that I wasn't even expecting or ready for. Someone made a comment that it should've been at the start but I actually preferred it now. The point is figuring it out yourself without strong influential guidance. I think if I was told what to say or how to write blog earlier I wouldn't have really paid much attention to it if I'm being honest so I really liked how Ricardo left it till a little later to give us that feedback.

[designcomputing2020]

Empathy - ICT

18/03/2020

I have watched all the videos that were up on the lecture slides all surrounding empathy. Some were simply of empathy, what it means, how it feels and what evokes empathy for us. And some of them were of how we can use technology to evoke empathy and how this can sometimes make a difference in people’s reali lives. 

I found this perspective on empathy and VR so fascinating, connecting two things I hadn’t thought about as a pair and seeing the effects. I took some notes on each of the short videos so here are some of my thoughts and feelings I experienced. 

the bear video: This was a very basic, easy to understand and clever way of explaining empathy and how it differs to sympathy. It mentions 4 qualities of empathy; perspective taking, staying out of judgement, recognising emotion in others, and communicating this to someone. To be empathetic is “ a vulnerable choice.”

VR & empathy + swapping gender VR : I found these videos really eye opening and made me see VR in a completely new light. VR can be used to connect people emotionally by helping them to see something they are unable to see in reality. The gender swap one was interesting, the reactions people had to it were so much more emotional than I anticipated, I guess it’s about connecting on an emotional level since yourself and your partner are no longer in the same physical forms. This, or it could have something to do with seeing ‘yourself’ as the person you love. 

Once the mask comes off, people can be more knowledgeable and are emotionally prepared to help make a difference in the real world. This relates to the video on Myanmar, how through VR we would be able to go and see the way these people live on the other side of the world, and then hopefully encourage us to make a difference. 

Really insightful look into human emotions/reactions can be practised with VR and how it can help people around the world. 

[designcomputing2020]

My version of the 3 minute vlog we ask students to create

[designcomputing2020]

Here we go. Watch how these videocalling solutions “take off” in the next couple of months as more people work from home... 

[designcomputing2020]

We did an interview exercise involving 3 people. Person A: listener (not allowed to speak) - Person B: interviewer (needed to find out their biggest fear without directly asking the question of phrasing the word “biggest fear” during the interview) - Person C: interviewee (has no idea what the activity was as they were asked to step out when the “mission” was explained to A and B.

Through the exercise I was the interviewer, trying to ask a various of questions that could give away puzzle pieces to what person C’s greatest fear was. However without much thinking about how person C would feel, I threw at C various questions suddenly that were deep and personal. All I was thinking was about what questions to ask that could leave clues to what C was scared about, as if it were a competitive game and I was the main player, when in reality C’s P.O.V might also need to be considered.

Questions I attempted to ask (if answer was possible) Do you remember your dreams? what about nightmares, your last one. Worst qualities in a friend, worst experience with someone Have you been in a relationship before? heartbroken before? What is your worst memory/ experience you’ve had in life so far?

Near the end of the interview, Person C then made a comment outside the interview questions about how he felt sorry for person A just sitting there and listening to our conversation; as well as how suddenly deep and personal all these questions were (when before the exercise we were casually talking)

It was when the exercise was nearing the end that I realised I was just bombarding person C with deep and personal questions, in the P.O.V almost out of no where considering they did not know the activity was even an interview exercise. C was just randomly told to join a random pair when they entered the room. I did not attempt to think of how person C would feel, (learning from a peer) it might’ve been better if we eased our way into the deep topics like a normal conversation where there is sharing form both sides. A possibility was to open up first about our biggest fears making myself vulnerable first so C feels more comfortable with opening up. For the lessons that are taken by the listener, was to not just sit and stare  engaged in the conversation but not saying a word, thus made C feel awkward about their presence. A better approach would’ve been to put an “invisible wall” as if A is occupied (e.g writing, on the laptop, sketching)so it doesn’t feel like someone is just there openly and uncomfortably eavesdropping. 

This exercise was quite an eye opener that made me consider more about the other person’s P.O.V experience as well as better interview strategies that makes the interviewee more comfortable.  Looking forward to adapt in the next interview! O_O 

[designcomputing2020]

Week 2 Reflection BCT

07/03/2020

Just going to start off by saying how thankful I am to be in this degree and how excited I am to keep going ! If I hadn’t discovered BCT I honestly have no idea what i’d be doing or where I’d be right now and it feels like a relief to be in these classes with professors who are so knowledgable and kind and to have a classroom of friends! 

In general I really like AUT and the way it works, what it stands for and the people there. I feel at home and safe to walk around, study, be social, ask for help, I think it is such a cool place and I’m grateful to be here!

I love the way the studio style environment works, I feel like sitting at tables in groups made it so much easier to relax and settle into this new world of uni. We could open up, talk and get to know each other without being surrounded by 300+ students. It has only been 2 weeks (6 classes) and it feels like i’ve known these people forever, so cool making friends in an environment where we are all passionate about what we are learning. 

I was surprised (not in a bad way) by how sudden the work load was, probably me just being ignorant but I was pushed to start being productive instantly and I think this was a good start, it felt good to get stuck in! For our first weekly studio project we smashed it out, anytime out of class we were in uni working on it and figuring it out, learning new things etc. It was good that we all had the same motivation and we worked well as a team I feel. I really really love collaborative environments because I love working with people and being involved in a group or community and the fact that this is what we have had already in the first week even makes me SO excited! 

Programming for creativity is really enjoyable. That’s where we have to really get our brains thinking back in that problem solving, maths kind of way! I knew that whatever I studied I wanted to learn to code within that so that was a big factor in choosing BCT. So far I really enjoy it! it’s interesting, it’s satisfying, it’s challenging, it’s great! In the class I am not afraid to ask for help either from Stefan, the TA’s pr my peers, it feels like a safe open space which I really appreciate as I’m sure most others in the class are too.

over the past 2 weeks I have learnt so much it’s kinda crazy, got me thinking in whole new ways, working with new materials, making cool things, just everything ! Safe to say I am so glad I made this choice, it will change my life for the better and I think my future self will thank me for it as much as I thank myself now ! 

[designcomputing2020]

Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159-179.

I've been reading more on ways of grading, and particularly the tensions between "analytic" and "holistic" approaches. Think of Mode 1 and Mode 2 ways of evaluating student work: either by a rapid and intuitive feeling or by methodical and systematic, explicit reasoning. Teaching Design and Creative Technologies over 2 decades, I've come to realise the strengths of both approaches, and so this semester I ran a couple of exercises to test a hypothesis. I assigned markers of student projects two different tasks: one where I gave them a well-defined rubric and asked them to provide feedback (more explicit, systematic) and one where I merely asked them to register their "gut reaction" to the work. In both cases I only received their list of numerical grades. I wanted to know if different ways of grading the same work would give higher or lower averages, higher or lower variances, etc.

When we looked at the results, it was interesting to see that in nearly 90% of the cases, the inter-rater agreement was extremely high, virtually the same. Think about what that means. Students may perceive a rubric-based grade as somehow more reliable, more deliberated, better supported. It's a fallacy. For most cases.

When we looked at the outliers (and in some cases the gaps were huge), we decided to go back and re-assess the work again, first independently look at it, then together share our views and comment. In all cases, there was a level of negotiation, or rather, learning from each other. In some, even a second look was enough for the marker to recognise "halo effects" or other sources of noise such as distractions, etc. In one or two cases, there was some debate that merited a third assessment or sparked an interesting debate.

So, what's better, hunch or spelled out evaluations? My tentative conclusion by now is that it will depend on the type of course and assessment event, and the composition of the teaching/grading team. It's best to test if these methods are aligned within a particular context, and if they are, then the answer will be "it doesn't matter, use either of them". Naturally, holistic is more time efficient, while analytic will be seen as fairer and more justified.

And we haven't even mentioned the quality of the rubric... most suck imho, but that's a topic for a future post.

[designcomputing2020]

ICT poster

This poster represents a valuable lesson I’ve learnt from BCT. The message I’m trying to convey through this poster is that confusion and complexity blinds people to an answer that is right in front of them. I’ve chosen a Rubik’s cube as a certain algorithm fascinated me. It is called god’s number. Of the 43 quintillion different combinations, all of them without exception can be solved in 20 or less moves. (https://cube20.org/) This reminded of some experiences I’ve had in BCT so far. An example of this is our cards for play assessment. When we were trying to decide on our final concepts for our cards, the confusion came about when there were so many of them. Our design of a coloured filter that changes colours was a solid idea. But as the deadline approached we were not able to focus on that idea and instead added other unnecessary designs like a narrative story which in the end made our product weaker. Because there were so many different pieces, It made the final picture so much more difficult to visualize. A lot like a Rubik’s cube. No matter how scrambled it may look, the answer is always much closer than you think. This was more reinforced when a mentor told us a project based solely around the colour filter idea would have been much better. The better concept was right there, but because of the confusion that came from the abundance of ideas and lack of time made it difficult to realize at the time.

[designcomputing2020]

Great reflections by our BCT students on their first few weeks at AUT: 

https://bctlevide.tumblr.com/post/184525802720/reflective-journalism-cards-for-play

https://callanisme.tumblr.com/post/184497155854/reflective-journaling

https://alyssabct.tumblr.com/post/184637871185/reflective-journaling-the-kolb-cycle

https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard/blog/sophiem874/184499396065

https://bhumikabct.tumblr.com/post/184476881257/reflective-journaling-data-objects

https://natpeabct.tumblr.com/post/184471365581/im-not-creative

https://jrtataut.tumblr.com/post/184501008689/reflective-blog-post-the-marshmallow-challenge

https://ultraisabellaroyal.tumblr.com/post/184501050550/reflective-journaling

https://lachlanbctsmith.tumblr.com/post/184492596506/reflective-journal

https://maxantony1.tumblr.com/post/184448276103/reflective-journaling

(In no particular order)

[designcomputing2020]

The Recorder

10th of April to the 19th of April

[designcomputing2020]

Data Object

In order to make the poi beautiful and normal, we brought the white plastic bags and three traditional Maori colour, red, black and white strings.

And another reason we choose poi because it can carry more information. So we did more research, we found the population of NZ and Maori, the number of Maori speakers also the number of different race of people in NZ. (from ancient to now) We are going to use the ball part to represent the Maori population, the length of the string to represent the number of Maori speaker, and the black strings mean the Maori people, the red strings mean the mixed (the people who have Maori lineage but not the pure) and the white strings mean pakeha. Then we began to calculate the percentage and the corresponding size or length is.

[designcomputing2020]

Sticking with Pois.

We decided our poi prototype and concepts worked very well and we have decided to move forward with it. This concept has two datasets relating to the topic on it. The length of the rope and the size of the head. The length of the rope gets shorter or longer depending on whether the population of Maori that speaks Te Reo Maori gets higher or lower. In most cases, the length of the rope gets shorter as the population that speaks Te Reo slowly gets diluted and lost over the years. The size of the head gets larger or smaller depending on if the Maori population gets larger or smaller. From our datasets, the Maori population starts high and then the population starts to drop throughout the 1800s before picking up again around the 1900s. We chose to use these datasets because its a good way to show how Te Reo Maori is slowly being lost and dying out because the amount of Maori speakers is getting less but the amount of Maori is increasing. We want to show its being lost and that the ratio is getting out of hand and that more Maori should be speaking Te Reo to keep up with the population growth.

[designcomputing2020]

More practical prototyping and implimentation.

We got out hands on a  quality chair that we could use at our disposal, so we decided to really try and create the full experience because, hey why not. This is our way of really seeing if we can impliment our idea and if it will work.  We were able to impliment the spring-leg system and make it functional. This is to represent that 1 in 4 people in NZ are disabled. As disability is not something that you can see from face-value, the spring is hiden inside a sleeve on one of the legs and you wont realise anything different untill you sit on the chair. This helps to create an emersive experience. It helps show also that disability doesnt mean someone cant function, it just means they function differently and allow people to quite literally feel this. The chair stands, but not easily. 

[designcomputing2020]

Probably Our Most Productive Day

Can I just start off by saying, thank god our group decided to come in today because we managed to get a lot of stuff done. The day started off with just Callan and I. We knew we had to sort out exactly what data we were going to use and how we were going to map this data onto our object, however, these were decisions that we felt had to be made by the group collectively so we decided to make some prototype cups and straws out of paper while we waited.

As the rest of the group arrived, we started looking into all the stats we had gathered for obesity to figure out which ones we’re going to use. After going through the data sets and figuring out which parts of the cup we want to use to map the data on, here is what we decided.

Data · Obesity rates across three countries in 2014 - New Zealand (NZ because it has the third worst obesity rate per capita, also allows the audience to realise that obesity is an issue in NZ if it is unknown to them): 29.6% - USA (USA because it has the highest rate of obesity in the world): 37.9% - Kenya (Kenya because it is a malnourished country and would clearly have a lower obesity rate in comparison to the other two countries, so a clear difference is seen): 11%

· Population of these three countries in 2014 - New Zealand: 4, 506,700 - USA: 317, 718, 779 - Kenya: 46, 024, 250

· Obesity rates across New Zealand from 1975 – 2015 - 1975: 10.9% - 2015: 30.2%

Mapping Data on Cup · Straw Length The straw length will represent the population of each country in 2014 (there will be three straws, one to represent each country).

· Straw Circumference The straw circumference will represent the obesity rate of that country in 2014.

· Top and Bottom Circumference of Cup The bottom circumference of the cup will represent the obesity rate of NZ in 1975, while the top circumference of the cup will represent the obesity rate of NZ in 2015.

The idea here is that we have one cup but three different straws, with each straw representing a different country. The functionality of the straws will be played around with depending on the stats for the countries. We also thought it would be interesting to play around with the sugar levels of the liquid that is going inside the cup. Below is an image of the math Milo did to convert these percentages into measurements.

It took a while playing around with the numbers because we would often result in ridiculous measurements for the straws which just wouldn’t really work out. However, when we figured it out Callan drew it all out properly so it would be easier to visualise.

We also decided to prototype using straws as Rakavi brought some in for us to play around with. So, we taped all of the straws together to see how it would affect the functionality of it. We also cut one so we could test a range of sizes. Below are a couple of videos of how it went.

As you can see, the straws weren’t very easy to use at all; it was possible, but difficult. However, we all saw this as a plus because the functionality of the straw is what we wanted to mess with. During this we were trying to figure out ways we could manipulate the straw but kept hitting dead ends, so Callan and Rakavi decided to talk to Krishna to see if he would have any ideas. Here’s what they came back with.

· Stainless steel pipes

· Paper, but plastic-y paper

· Melt straws and reform them then stick them together (has to be thermoplastic though)

· Irrigation/garden hose

We all quite liked the idea of using an irrigation hose because they come in various sizes and can be manipulated but it may still be difficult to make one a certain percentage bigger than another. Moving forward, we decided that over the next week we would individually make prototypes of certain components of the cup. Nate, Callan, Jordan and I will be making prototypes of the cup, Milo and Rakavi will be making prototypes of the straws and Daniel will be testing different sugar levels for the liquid. Then the following week we are planning to meet up again and create the final data object. Although it took us a while to get to this point, I’m feeling pretty good about where we are at now because we are on track and are confident in the decisions we are making. Hopefully it all goes smooth from here.

[designcomputing2020]

Making Things Better 👍

So, second day into the mid semester break and I’ve spent 7 hours today working concepts and prototypes for our data object. I know we’re not “expected” to do any work over the break, but it ain’t gonna do itself and it gotta get done!!

Am I doing this right?

Last night, while lying in bed, I couldn’t stop thinking about our data object design. Are we doing it right? What could we be doing differently? What is the meaning behind what we are doing? Im worried that 1. our straw concept is not going to work and 2. we don’t have good enough reasoning behind why we chose the data we did. 

So, our straw concept. In my last post I discussed how our straw idea wasn’t achieving what we had hoped it would. All its doing is making it harder to drink through the straws representing larger populated countries, the obesity rate doesn’t effect it at all like we want it to. So I proposed a change, make the length go the straw represent the obesity rate instead of the population. However, I have realised another flaw with this concept. The shortest straw may be the easiest straw to drink with but you will reach a point where the straw isn’t long enough to reach what is in the bottom of the cup to finish the drink. Whereas the longer straw will have no problem reaching the bottom. So, the short straw is hard to drink from as you can’t drink everything in the cup and the long straw is hard to drink from as most peoples lungs aren’t big enough to inhale enough air to get the liquid up. For this concept to work properly one length needs to be easier to drink from than the other. At the moment, they are both equally as hard to achieve the desired outcome of drinking the liquid in the cup. We could possibly adjust this so the smallest straw is the same size as a regular straw and make the longer straw linger as well, but the longer straw would end up over 5m long. This isn’t impossible to achieve this at all but I’m not sure how practical it is. I feel if we had a straw this long it could be making it too difficult to drink from which isn’t what we are trying to do. However, I also feel as tho the only reason the straw was so hard to drink from was because of the tiny air gaps in it. So far we have only actually tested this on actually straws joint together. I feel that when we try this with irrigation it will be way easier to drink from. But then again, what’s the point in this if a 5m straw is just as easy to drink with as a regular straw.

Now onto our reasoning behind comparing NZ to the US and Kenya. We say we picked these countries because the US has one of the highest obesity rates and Kenya has one of the lowest. But they’re not completely at the top and bottom of the scale, so why these countries. In 2016, US had an obesity percent of 36.2%. But Nauru had a percentage of 61!! And in 2016, Kenya had a obesity rate of 7.1%, but Vietnam had the lowest rate with 2.1%!! So, if we really wanted to show how large the difference is across the world, why didn’t we pick those two countries instead? Yes, I agree that US was a good one to pick, simply because it is a well known country for having obese people. And it helps us understand that we actually aren’t that far behind them. But is this a good enough reason for picking it to compare NZ to? I feel that we need to go back and have a good look at what we should be comparing and why. 

Lastly, I’m beginning to wonder where my other group members are getting their stats from. Because with the more research I do the more I realise that some of our figures don’t add up. This is definitely something we need to look into and discuss. We all need to have the same stats and if they don’t match, we need to look at why. We can’t just get our numbers from the first site that comes up on Google. We need to check that our sources are reliable and accurate. The majority of my data I am getting from here: https://ourworldindata.org/obesity 

Little bit of random testing. 

Yesterday I got a coke from McDonalds. I started inspecting the cup, playing around with the lid and I even graded a handful of straws and tried a few things with them (sorry Mother Earth, its for research). 

Basically all I found from this is the more straws you try drink from at once the harder it is. This is just because of all the gaps around the straws. You can seal around the straw properly with your mouth so the majority of what you are sucking in is air. 

Lightbulb moment!! 💡

Last night, while lying in bed contemplating life, I had an epiphany that would solve all my problems!! (well, the ones related to this assignment at least). What if we just scrap the idea of incorporating other countries into this and just have all the data based on NZ? 

While thinking about the straw idea, I thought about some funky straws my sister has in some of her cups:

Now, these straws are actually designed to stop you from pulling the straw out of the but, but by turning it around, you could stop a short straw from falling into the cup. So, what if we use the idea of not being able to drink as much with a shorter straw and show the obesity rate that way?

Yet another concept!

So, you have 3 cups. One represents 1976, one represents 1996 and one represents 2016. The idea is for these cups is to show the change in the obesity percentages in New Zealand over time. 

The height of the cup will represent New Zealand’s population for that year. The diameter of the top of the cup will represent the female obesity rate for that year and the bottom diameter will so the male rate. Then, the straw will represent the overall obesity percentage in New Zealand for that year. But it won’t do it by the height of the straw, it will do it by only making a percentage of the liquid in the cup drinkable. That percent will be the same as the obesity percentage.

Here are some 1:1 scale drawings I have made of these three cups. 

1976

For this cup, the height is 15.5cm which represents the population that year of 3,108,570. What I did to get 15.5 is divide the population by 200,000. I did this for the populations for each year keeping the differences consistent. The top diameter of this cup is 6.3cm representing the 12.6% of obese females that year (12.6/2 = 6.3) and the bottom diameter is 4.9cm representing the male obesity percentage if 9.7 that year. I got 4.9 by using the same formula as I used for the females. Then to work out how long I needed to make the straw, I had to work out the volume of the cup. For this cup, the volume is 383.75ml. I then found 11.2% of that which is the same percentage as the overall obesity rate for New Zealand and got 43ml. So, I want to make 43ml of liquid in this cup drinkable. To figure this out, I did the volume calculations in reverse and got 1.4cm for the height of the straw. Now, I didn’t use this as the full height of the straw. This number is the length of the straw from the top of the liquid down so you can only drink 43ml of the liquid before the straw becomes too shot to drink more. 

I then repeated this process 2 more times for the other 2 years. 

1996

This cup height is 18.5cm tall representing the 3,717,349 people in NZ in 1996. The top diameter is 10.4cm representing the 20.7% of obese females that year and the bottom diameter is 9cm representing the 18% of obese males that year. The straw goes into the liquid 3.2cm making 265.7ml of the 1,369.5ml drinkable representing the19.4% of obese people this year. 

2016

2016 has a much larger cup. The height is 23.5cm representing the population of 4,660,833 people. The top diameter is 15.7cm representing the 31.4% of obese females. The bottom diameter is 15cm representing the 30.1% of obese males. The straw goes 7.5cm into the liquid making 1,2536 (30.8%) of the 4,070ml drinkable representing the obese percent of NZ this year. 

I was hoping that one of these years had a higher male obesity rate rather than a higher female obesity rate making the bottom of the cup bigger than the top making it look like it was upside down and creating a bigger difference between cups and adding another talking point. But unfortunately that didn’t happen. In fact there this has never happened. Although, the male percentage of obesity has slowly been getting closer to the female percentage of obesity. So one day it might happen.

I like that there is an even gap of 20 years between each cup. It keeps things consistent and the even separation help you see how the rate the obesity percentage is going up is increasing. If I was to add another cup I’d change it to ever 10 years starting at 1986 but I feel this wouldn’t be necessary and you would in fact loose 10 years of data by doing this and there wouldn’t be as much of a difference. I thing 3 is a great number for compareing these cups.

What else could I do with this concept?

Im thinking that the liquid in these cups should still be water with sugar in it and have it represent the average daily sugar intake of an adult in NZ which is 60g (14 cubes) of sugar or something similar to this. 

I have also thought about what I could possible show with the lid on the cup. I have thought about how McDonalds have little bubble things on their lids that you push in to show what type of drink it is. I could do something like this but Im not sure if its necessary. I have also thought about changing the straw diameters to represent something but I also don’t think this is necessary so at the moment this is just a standard straw size. And I’ve also thought about changing how far the top of the straw sticks out of the cup. But again I don’t think this is necessary and I don’t want to do something to this that could effect drinking from the cup. Im already showing 4 different sets of data on one cup and personally I think that is a good amount. I know it would be cool to fuck the cup up completely but I don’t want to end up going over board and end up fucking everything up.

What next…

This week I plan to go out and find some materials I could make this concept out of. Ideally it will be something see through. 

I will also pitch this idea to my group soon (I wanted to get a good concept down before going to them or else they would probably just shut me down straight away as we have already changed concepts so much). Hopefully they like it. I feel as tho it is a much more solid idea than our current concept. 

So, for now I plan to work on both ideas. For the current one comparing the 3 different countries, I have started making a full scale model out of paper. For this one I will also be doing research into the best materials to be using to make it with. 

Lots of numbers…

Heres a look at some of the calculations I’ve done and drawings I’ve made to help me create these concepts:

Calculating the volume of each cup and figuring out the straw lengths and drinkable percentage…

Figuring out the equations needed to find dimesions and angles of cup to make into a template…

And making a scaled down template for the original cup…

As you can see, I’ve been doing a lot of math and geometry and number stuff today and my brain now hurts. So, after now 8 hours of work on this lovely Sunday, I now need a rest. 

[designcomputing2020]

10/4/19

We go feedback that the lamp was too simple, and not interactive enough. The data didn’t change how people interacted with the lamp, and by interacting with it you wouldn’t learn anything new about the data set.

This meant the rubbish bin idea was revisited, which got more positive feedback. It was stripped down of its complicated mechanics by picking a main statistic from the data set to work with (same as lamp).

500m (million tonnes) recycled plastic total:

- 100m incinerated

- 300m recycled then discarded

-100m recycled still in use

This showed that only ⅕ pieces of recycled plastic is still being reused, and ⅘ was not. 

* As a side note, yesterday I think I was trying to think positively about the lamp idea even though it did not have as much potential as other ideas. I’m glad we’ve moved back to a concept with more options that I am looking forward to working on more.

This was the first sketch of the new bin prototype. I did some of my own sketching to think of different ways of doing this with pros and cons of each method. The idea behind all of these is that 4/5 times plastic is put in the bin it falls out again, as 4/5 pieces of plastic from 1950 to 2015 is not currently being recycled in use. This would be unexpected for the user, as they would never before have used a bin and have the rubbish fall out again. This would change how they used the bin, as they would have to keep picking up the rubbish and putting it back in the bin, which would be annoying and time consuming. This would make them think about why it was not working, as like the fact that not all plastic put in recycling bins is being recycled, not all of recycling will stay in this bin.

Supplies were bought to begin testing one of the simpler ideas where there is a hole in the side of the bin that 4/5 of the rubbish falls out of due to dividers. We used ping pong balls throughout prototyping to keep checking how well the divider was working.

The main issue I had with this design was that the user would be able to see what was happening to the rubbish immediately, and that they would be able to tell that it was not an ordinary bin from looking at it. This would take away from the surprise factor of the original design, and would mean they could quickly see how to use the bin effectively. This led to the outside being covered in paper to hide the interior, as this was a cost effective solution for a prototype.

The flap at the side is where the rubbish (ping pong balls) came out of. It worked very well due to the paper cone at the top randomizing where the balls fall, the sloping interior, and the identical  spherical shapes of the ping pong balls.

Finishing this meant we could take it around the room and get other students to try and use it. They were hesitant and suspicious of it as first, as they knew something would be different about it, likely due to the oddly taped exterior and the nature of this project.

Everyone was surprised when ping pong balls started coming out of the side, and viewed it as a game to try and get the balls to stay in. Only one immediately looked in the hole in the top to see how it functioned. Several students were frustrated by the balls not staying in, one very much so, and another cheating the system by putting their hand into the right compartment in the top. This was good, because it meant people cared about their rubbish staying in the bin, and wanted to know why it wasn’t working. I had wanted to use a small hole in the top for this reason, but maybe a rubber interior like for glass bins would be a more effective way of hiding the interior. The data had to be explained, but the fact that it was not something people initially thought of showed that it is something people need to be educated about. All of the test subjects thought this was a good way of communicating this though, but I’m wondering if it can be improved further.