Nic showed us unit that could trigger smells which connects to Littlebits triggers. The box contained a strawberry its smell wafted by a fan, Nic has developed the box to be used with the Littlebits kit to diffuse various smells.

Demo of Sound Collection Module by Craig, the prototype has been made so a Co-Researcher can hang the unit round their neck, record 6 sounds by pushing the big red button during a tour of an exhibition, hear the recorded sounds by pulling the neck lanyard, choosing each sound by twisting the top segment. The Co-researcher can then experiment triggering sounds using the LittleBits Kit that will add to the development of sensory object museum interpretation. Unit still needs a bit more refinement, but we are hoping one will be ready for our test workhop at MERL Museum of English Rural Life with members of Reading Mencap on Thursday May 5th 2013.

 

The projects examined in previous posts had a lot of interesting concepts and ideas- this is a condensed list of them, with recommendations for future attempts.

===============================================================

Squishy Circuits:

• Non-prescriptive medium. Unlike other ‘modular’ approaches which can only be fitted together in certain ways.
• Similar to, and in some senses more flexible than designing PCBs or electronic circuits.
• Use of familiar materials (clay, playdough).

Tern:

• Modular components.
• Inactive components. The blocks themselves contain no electronics, simplifying their design and allowing them to be more robust and cheaper.
• External processing. Interpretation and running of the program is performed by a device not physically attached to the program.

littleBits:

• Modular components.
• Strictly colour-coded categories of piece – input, output, power, wiring, etc.
• Keyed connectors. Can only be fitted together one way.

Tangible Programming Bricks:

• Modular components- each representing a ‘function’.
• Parametric components. Timing or other aspects of each function can be altered.
• Direction-insensitive connection. Modules can be attached any way round.
• Familiar materials – Lego.

Electronic Blocks:

• Modular components, all inputs and outputs.
• Icons to indicate function, instead of text.
• Familiar materials – Lego.

Reactable:

• Local medium- programs can only be created in a certain space, and only affect that space.
• Multifunctional modules- some modules have different effects depending on their orientation.
• Symbols to indicate function. Function must be determined by experimentation or reasoning.
• Proximity-based connections.
• Virtual tangible user interface. GUI elements are attached to physical elements, and are manipulated as though they were tangible objects.

StoryRooms:

• “Wizard of Oz” interface- all functions are actually performed by a man behind a curtain.
• Programming mode/playback mode- system is taught, then reacts based on this teaching.

Cuboino:

• Track as program- the purpose of the ‘program’ is to direct objects along a path, which set off outputs as they pass by.
• Modular components
• Active components
• Inactive components

GameBlocks:

• Modular components
• External processing

Dr. Wagon:

• Modular components
• Active components

Topobo:

• Modular components
• Active components
• Passive components
• Programming mode/Playback mode

===============================================================

PRINCIPLES COMMON TO PREVIOUS PROJECTS:

MODULARITY:
Nearly all tangible programming interfaces use modular components, where a single block, device, or item represents a function or serves a single purpose. Programs are created by putting these components together.

ACTIVE/PASSIVE COMPONENTS:
Some had the components themselves provide power, processing, or effects, whilst others had a dedicated power supply, or offloaded these functions to an external device. Both approaches work well, though self-powered and processing devices tend to be larger and more complex. This may not be a downside- larger components are more easily manipulated.

FLEXIBILITY:
Schemes involving ‘active’ components tend to be less flexible with regards to their connections. They have to be connected in one or two ways, limiting the physical structure of the programs and thus the possibility of incorporating them into other devices.
Many schemes were created to control a specific device, such as a turtle or microwave. Few were able to interface with a variety of sensors and effectors in the same manner as the Arduino.

IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTION:
Most modules’ functions are indicated to the user by icons. These mean users do not have to be able to read in order to use them. None of them actively used texture to indicate function, but occasionally had surface details as a side-effect of their design. Colours were often used to group modules into categories.

===============================================================

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Modular components are a useful way of providing flexibility whilst still giving users some pre-defined functions to use. Manipulating several small objects, each with a clear individual function, is easier than a “blank canvas” like a word processor.

Active components, being those which provide their own power or processing, are more complex and therefore more likely to cease functioning or malfunction. This may be due to failure of their power supply, damage to their circuitry or mechanisms, or from poor connection to other necessary modules. Modules should be kept as simple as possible.
Passive components, although more robust and simpler, cannot provide some features that active ones can, like the ability to ‘test’ a module without connecting it to a program. Active sensors or outputs could be constructed with a ‘test’ button to trigger their output, or sensors could be given an indicator to show when they have been triggered.
Both approaches would be suitable, though it should be noted that passive components will require an external processor which may introduce complications.

Connectors should be keyed to prevent damage to the components, and to prevent frustration of the users- if a connection is incorrect but this is not indicated to the user, the device may not function as expected, with the fault being difficult to locate.
Ideally, connectors will be able to accommodate several different orientations to permit the programs/devices to fit into other creations more easily.

It should be made possible to interface with a wide variety of sensors and effectors, rather than limiting control to one device- given that the project’s aim is to simulate sensory experiences, limiting the possible types of experience is counterproductive.

The function of a module should be obvious from its features. This should be accomplished using as many senses as possible, rather than simply writing the function of the module onto its casing. Icons should be preferred over text.

External processing does make individual components simpler, but introduces complications as the interface between the program modules and the external processor must be reliable.
It also allows for software upgrades to be applied to the processor, without having to alter the program modules. As these are likely to be embedded systems, compared to an external processor which has fewer restrictions on size and power, upgrading its software is probably simpler.
It can also more easily accommodate new modules, as only the processor must be updated as opposed to all modules.

Reading University has a 3D printer, which we planned to use for this project. It uses ABS, which is durable and despite only being available in one colour,c an be relatively easily painted if necessary.

The printer is compatible with Solidworks (or anything else that produces .STL files), which allows for precisely-made parts to be produced to scale.

The case, littleBits connectors, and the three ‘top’ designs have been printed (still learning to use the camera!):

This is the hex-top. It has had to be extended upwards to accomodate the internal parts.

 

 

 

 

This is the dome top- it was tall enough already. The shaft of the rotary switch used to select the sound has been cut to fit.

 

 

 

This is the original ‘pie’ top, again, extended to fit.

 

The current design makes them relatively easy to change, but this does mean that the tops could be removed by a user. Future versions will require bayonet lugs or some similar mechanism to hold the top on.

The littleBits connectors are generally the right size, but the small prong and socket is too fragile in 3D-printed ABS. They are also slightly the wrong size and do not fit cleanly. It has already been noted that they will need holes for magnets and electrical connections, so future versions will incorporate these changes.

 

Kate and I are planning to hold a preliminary sensory session with a group from Mencap at MERL in September. Hopefully this will be a good time to test out the audio prototype and some ideas planned for the Autumn sessions.

We visited the museum and the archive at MERL

We considered existing objects that could contain sensor and listened for sounds used in the existing collection.

We found that videos are used in the museum although most of the films have no actual sounds of the activity instead a narrator describes the activity. The videos of crafts pictured below do feature sounds of the process.

Here is a compilation of the range of sensors and outputs we can use, or could make ourselves (to be compatible with LittleBits) to get an idea of how much choice we really have! (the ones marked in bold are already available to purchase in LittleBits)

Sensors: light, sound, bend, roll switch, toggle, motion, pressure, slide dimmer, pulse, time sensor, stretch, tilt, accelerometer, blow, proximity

Output: fan, light, sound, buzzer, motor, vibration, rgb LED, bargraph, smell (based on olly factory/aroma company), video

Also, LittleBits supply AND and OR logic gates which add complexity to the circuits.

Just as a log: In our meeting last week, we also talked about practical ways to introduce and demonstrate the co-researchers to the concept of the different sensors overcoming the problem that the sensors don’t look like what they do (e.g proximity sesnsor looks like a phone). Here is a list of some of the ways we discussed:

light sensor in a box, bend sensor in a foam noodle, pressure sensor in a stress ball or shoe, blow sensor in a windmill, motion sensor in a wand, accelerometer in a bottle with oil and water.

Please feel free to edit this post with other ideas or if I have missed anything out!

A circuit has been designed around the ISD1820PY chips which allows up to 12 of them to be used in a single device.

As mentioned in previous posts, the method of selecting which sound ‘file’ to play or record must be kept as simple as possible. We also want to make every action or method of interacting with the device distinct. The main idea has been a rotating section, either a ring or the entire top of the device, which ‘clicks’ round.

Colours, textures, or embossed indicators (numbers, braille, or abstract symbols) will be used on the top section to differentiate between the sections.

The ‘golf ball’ design shown earlier, though it looks a little like a microphone and provides a good surface to grip, does not do this, and so a few other designs have been created.

The first concept was a similar image to a ‘Trivial Pursuit’ counter, with the distinctive pie wedges. This design provides plenty of space on its top surface for indication markers (coloured surfaces are used to indicate the sections here, but can be replaced with other methods later). The grooved lines match up with similar grooves in the body of the device, allowing users to check if the sections are lined up correctly.

This dome-shaped version should provide a more ergonomic gripping surface, at the cost of size. The curved surfaces are also harder to print or emboss indicator markers on.

It should be the same white colour as the other designs- this screenshot is grey.

This hexagonal one was created because I was looking at bolts earlier. It’s similar to the ‘pie wedges’ design in terms of usability and practicality.

Tested LittleBits Extended Kit with two brothers I know with Aspergers (Jacob, 15, Adam 9/10). Both are very able and social but still struggle with attention span. Both were initially intrigued by the packaging and colourful bits but Adam found it a lot more exciting and willing to try than his older brother and this report is from his experience.

I explained very briefly about the colours and how the pink sensors have to be before the green output but he got it pretty quickly and was making circuits in no time. He understood how the light sensor worked and we made the LittleBits box sound an alarm when opened (see video) and also similar to a fridge we made the light turn on when opened and off when shut.

After suggesting many of my own ideas about making a drinks stirrer, doorbell, he couldn’t see any point and preferred not to. On my part, a theme or plan of some sort would have encouraged more creativity. But, instead Adam made a really long circuit using every output possible and multiple switches. He understood that the first toggle switch controlled the power to everything, whilst the switches in between only controlled what he put after it, and if you put two switches together, both need to be on for the output to work.

Creativity problems:

– Having more outputs rather than simply buzzer, fan, light, motor would have been      beneficial (LittleBits starter pack combined with Extended kit gives more possibilities).

Practicality problems:

– LittleBits bits, are quite flimsy – when making a long circuit on the table, as soon as you lift it up, it falls apart and needs to be reassembled.

– The bits are more difficult to attach together than it appears – Adam did struggle and it took him 4/5 attempts each time to attach them. – Magnets are not that strong so don’t repel enough to indicate it is the wrong way.

– Fan output too weak for any of the projects we tried (couldn’t move a tissue!!)

-Motion sensor didn’t function from close up or further away.

https://vimeo.com/71506274