DG112 – Abstract Thinking of Design March 30,2010
Final report group 6 Matthijs Zwinderman Hugo Romer Jaap Norbruis Tijmen van Gurp
Table of contents Each iteration is split into individual descriptions and concludes with a diagram and short explanation of the group discussion about these iterations. The "Reflections"chapter is similarly divided per group member.
0: Original products
3
1: First iteration
13
2: Second iteration
24
3: Third iteration
33
4: Fourth iteration
44
5: Reflections
52
2|Page
0: Original products Matthijs Zwinderman
I picked my camera (a Canon Powershot A630) as I always carry it with me. I like the quality of the pictures it takes and its speed. The camera is very fast from turning it on to taking a picture, which makes it possible to make action photos, but it’s also quick to take out of its accompanying protecting satchel. I like the ability to take photos from an unusual standpoint. Because the screen can be rotated, it is possible to take photos around a corner or over a crowd. I also like the sturdy feeling; because of its weight the camera feels like you’re holding something powerful and tough. What I don’t like about the camera is its size: the camera is too big to comfortably keep on me. It’s possible to put the camera in a pocket, but it’s uncomfortable. Another possibility is to attach the satchel to my belt, but that is also uncomfortable (and slightly unfashionable). This is why I mostly carry it inside a bag, which increases the time it takes from seeing something happen to making a photo. This is a trade-off for the rotational screen and the sturdy feeling.
Form
Function
Interaction
Heavy: 245 grams (excluding batteries)
Fast picture taking
Quickly take it out of the case
Big
Easy zoom
Holding it in one hand
A-symmetrical
Fluid screen rotation
Using the flexible screen to take unusual photos 3|Page
Form
Function
Flexible (screen)
Wearing it in a case
Heavy focus on screen and viewer
Simply go between taking and viewing photos
Metallic looking material
Form ‘forces’ correct usage
Button locations
Rotation screen
Interaction
Movements
For the movement analysis I focused on the screen: It has reasonable orientation possibilities, the screen can rotate 180 degrees on the zaxis and 270 degrees on the hinge-axis. At first the screen is oriented towards the camera, for protection, to see the contents on the screen, there is an opening. The movement is small, short range and detailed. Because it is detailed, the movement is also slow, most of the times, depending on the type of photo you make: action or standing still (in any of them you try not to push it too far). There are several stops in the movement, for a 90 degree angle, making the movement staccato. The hinge has friction, to keep the screen from being ‘floppy’, making the movement tensed. The hinge-mechanism limits movement, making the experience tightening. Lastly, there is bound flow, as the movement is restricted to only a couple of positions.
4|Page
Hugo Romer How do I use this product? The deodorant spray can is a combination of the actual metal can and the plastic turning handle. This turning handle ensures the can doesn’t start spraying while it is being pushed and squeezed in every direction inside your bag for example. To get access to the actual deodorant, I must turn and move down the plastic handle in one movement and the spray top will appear along with the button to start spraying. For this action/movement I need both hands. To spray, I need two fingers to have a firm grip on the spray button, but then a powerful deodorant cloud comes out of the can. To close the can I need two hands again to make the counterclockwise turn and upward movement. What do I like about it? o Combination of metal and plastic texture o Solid form o “Spray-in-your-bag”- prevention What do I dislike about this product? o I need both hands just to unlock the can o The button sometimes get stuck o I feel the turning handle can come down by itself
Form The deodorant can is a cylindrical shaped object of about 15 centimeters in length. It is mostly black with the Axe logo all over it along with additional info. The can itself is actually metal, while the handle on top of it consist of plastic. The handle has ribbons
5|Page
on it to ensure a better grip while unlocking the can. This handle is about one third of the size of the entire object. Function The main function here is to provide deodorant through a portable container. The deodorant inside the can is being held liquid under pressure, to be able to carry more deodorant in the same volume as if it were in gas state. A sub function is the protection against arbitrary spraying in one’s bag for example, as all objects in bags tend to be squeezed and pushed in every possible direction. This function is enclosed in the plastic handle on top of the can. This handle blocks the spray opening and the spray button by default to fulfill its function as “spray-in-your-bag�-preventer. Interaction The interaction consists of unlocking the can to allow for deodorant spraying. The plastic handle on top has to be turned about 180 degrees and pulled down to unveil the spray opening and its button. By pressing the spraying button deodorant comes out of the opening, and this interaction or action is possible as long as the plastic handle is turned down and the spray opening is free. Movement The involved movement in terms of dynamic quality dimensions can be described as on a spot, small and a-symmetrical. The on a spot dimension is the result of the turning and pulling down of the handle being constrained to one action. It is impossible to turn the handle and not pulling it down or vice versa. In addition the handle is on a fixed spot relative to the spray can and moves on a small predefined track over the top of the can. This also defines the keyword small as a movement quality. The main movement (the turning and pulling down) is a-symmetrical due to its circular motion in one direction in order to unlock the spray opening.
6|Page
Jaap Norbruis
For this assignment I focused on an electric guitar because I think this is an interesting object which offers many perspectives of view and use. What do I think of an electric guitar in terms of ‌ Form: + looks sexy + feels comfortable + is solid + is minimalistic -
has buttons
function: + provides a feeling of freedom
7|Page
+ making music + medium to express yourself + medium to derive identity from + medium to impress others -
requires 2 different forms of interaction
Interaction: + getting sound out of an electric guitar is easy + mastering an electric guitar requires a combination of preciseness and flexibility
I connected an electric guitar with the following products/experiences:
an instrument yourself
medium to derive identity
making music
medium to impress
medium to express
feeling of freedom
I chose to increase an electric guitar in the area of the feeling of freedom.
8|Page
Tijmen van Gurp
How do I use this product? As I pick up the speakers it feels light in the hand, and in its folded position it takes no more room than a handful. There are some raw nodes, but thing itself feels quite sleek. When I take it with me I carry it in my hands, or put it in my bag pack, it is too big for in my pocket. Sometimes when my hands are full and I want to transport it for a short way I clip it to my trousers. When I am on my final destination, most often this is by doing the dishes, but also while sailing. I first unfold the speakers. One after each other I move them backwards to their speaker position. There are some possible positions in between, but while moving at a certain point it automatically springs to the position you move it in. After having the speaker unfold I turn it a bit to see which side the mini-jack plug is. The plug and its short wire is nicely integrated in the design, with a small handle on the mini-jack plug I pull the handle 90 degrees to a position wherein I can grab it with my thumb and middle finger. Then I plug my iPod touch in switch the on knob and start playing the music. When I want to change the batteries I turn of the lid of the back by pushing the 2 buttons to each other. And pulling the lid of. Pro’s and Con’s about this product •
What do I like about it o IPod fits right between the two speakers o Small proportions for carrying it with you 9|Page
•
o Chock and spat wetter resistant o Good sound for small speakers, not to flat lot of bass o No hard edges o You can feel the sound with your fingers What are the things I dislike about this product o Does not turn power of when removing IPod o The opening of the speakers is pure functional, and could be more fun to do. o It uses a lot of battery’s o The given standard is useless my iPod doesn’t fit in it o The wire is hard to get out when it is integrated
Form The overall color of this thing is white, the speakers itself are shiny and have a black rubbery border. The thing is not so big, the surface has the size of mobile phone nowadays. All the corners and edges are curved. It is visible that the thing is made out of multiple parts glued to each other. It has 2 buttons at the back battery lid. It has a ribbed power on/off slider, and a red led light. And it has a min-jack plug with a cord of about 15 centimeters which can be laid down in the product. It has a black power input, for line current. The plug has a small clip which is tangible with your fingers. In the place where the plug fits in the product is a small notch big enough to get you nail under the clip. At the outside of the speakers are 2 small holes for releasing the air pressure of the speakers. Function First off all the overall function of this thing is to be able to produce sound out of a extern medium which has an mini-jack plug as an input. Because it has its own power source it is portable set of speakers. The function for the fact that you can fold it is to make it smaller, but also protect the more vulnerable 10 | P a g e
parts of the speakers. An extra function of folding it open is that your IPod can lay between the two speakers. The small clip to the min-jack plug is to get it out of its frame, the small notch helps whit that. The power button is to be able to shut the power on or off, the switch is ribbed because you have more grip on it. The back lid is there to be able to remove the batteries. Interaction When you open the product you see more detail, IE difference in material becomes visible when closed it is just one solid white thing. I think the speakers attract to touch because you can see them vibrate on the music, and it feels funny to `feel` the music. It has one specific side to lay on, but you can lay it down on many different ways. The way the speakers opens: You can open and close the speakers; it turns from small to grand. The movement is asymmetrical, and the 2 boxes move separately, and you have to do 2 handlings before it is open. But you can set every speaker in the position you want. In the opening of the product it comes to a point where it automatically accelerates and switches in position, it than decelerates in really short notice. The movement is in that way staccato (not fluent).The movement is controllable, but it has some force of itself, so it is possible to let it move out of itself at that point it is an uncontrolled and weak movement. The wire By getting the wire out of it shelf and back in is a lot of pulling and pushing. The movements are direct and very detailed. Motivation on what I want to improve: The product has a clear opening movement which I want to improve. There are other interactions with this product possible but the most important thing is opening. In terms of function this is important because you can than easily carry it with you. The form of this speaker is good enough for such a cheap product. And is not something I want to change in the future. The form depends on the function, smaller speakers will produce less sound, and bigger speakers will make them less portable. So what I want to explorer is the 11 | P a g e
interaction based on the opening movement of this product. I think that the movement is a really quick and asymmetrical movement. When opening the first speakers they want to jump into an opening position or a closed position. There is no possibility for the user to set the speakers in every direction you want. The movement has clear stops and accents while opening. I want to make the movement more free and ongoing the user can than chose in which position the speakers are placed. And I hope that the symmetrical movement will make the movement more special. This because you can’t see how the speakers are connected to each other and if you move one to the other one will appear to move quite magically. Asymmetrical to symmetrical Because you only need to move one speaker and the other one would follow. In the beginning each speaker had his own movement, now they move together From stops/accents to ongoing Because, first the speakers could only be flapped out fold in. Now every position in between is possible. There is no clear stop. From staccato to fluent Because in the beginning the movement almost went automatically and, you just needed a small push to make the movement happen. Now the movement stops if you don’t push the thin, so it is a more fluent movement. From interrupted to sustained The movement is now more sustained than interrupted because you can now move the speakers in every direction you want. From tensed to relaxed Because you first needed to push harder and the movement was more suddenly than now.
12 | P a g e
1: First iteration Matthijs Zwinderman
For the first iteration I decided to change the movement bound flow. I did this by detaching the screen from the camera. I made the model with wood, rope and clay. I tried to keep the form as close to the original, so I could evaluate the change of one movement in relation to the other. I added batteries to the model to make it approximately the same size and weight. The form has changed, as the device is now two separate entities. The screen is now completely detached from the camera (save for a wire). Due to this, the focus on the screen has increased. The device as a whole is heavier and bigger. The camera can be used for taking photos more flexibly, the user is no longer limited to just a small space in which he can see the camera-screen. This opens up possibilities to make even more unusual photos. Another change in function, is that by itself the camera does not make it possible anymore to keep the screen in a certain position. This requires the user to put the screen against something else. It will be less fast to take a picture now, as the flexible screen will make it hard to get the camera out of the holder (protection satchel). Other factors negatively impacting the speed are the size and weight of this iteration; picking up the camera from a table or out of the case will take more time. The camera is less handy to carry around, which would limit the frequency with which the user carries it around, which in turn limits the amount of photos taken. 13 | P a g e
The larger size and weight positively influence the feeling of sturdiness that I appreciate, but the connecting wire negatively influences the sturdy feeling. Even though there are new options to making photos, in one aspect the experience of holding the camera and taking pictures as been degraded; it requires the user to hold it in two hands. This is a severe limitation, as in some situations it is likely that there is only one hand available. I really appreciate the improvement in flexibility and fluidity of movement. Operating the camera feels more free and unbound. In playing the low-fi prototype, I have experienced many opportunities to make great photos. If this prototype would make it to the market, I would certainly buy it! It would be even better if the screen was wireless and could be attached back to the camera with a magnet... Group work We compared our different objects based on the movement descriptions. This was a tightening exercise, we listed the movement properties of each object and connected them. We saw that of the four objects, three were very similar (the guitar, the speakers and my camera) and the fourth object was very different (the deodorant). The main difference was the fluency of the motion (the three similar objects were all very fluent, unlike the deodorant). My camera could be further linked to the guitar, as they both exhibit free flow and through space. I decided that I wanted to improve on structure. The change in bound flow to free flow (the only bound is the wire) resulted in many other changes in the movement landscape. There are now many more orientation possibilities. The movement has gone from having stops to ongoing and from staccato to fluent, because there is no more hinge. This is also why the movement change from tensed to relaxed and from controlled to uncontrolled. The movement went from detailed to over all, from short to mid-range and from small to grand. A very interesting change is that the movement has gone from a personal space to a general space, this makes photographing a much more friendly experience. Instead of needing to keep the camera close to you to see the photo, it can be moved freely to the subject of the photo. Lastly, I experienced the original product to be tightening, because of it limiting your view to the screen attached to the device and this iteration to be a release from that.
14 | P a g e
Hugo Romer How do I use the product now? To get to the deodorant spraying, I must squeeze the can in order for the spray opening to pop out. Directly attached to the spray opening is the spray button, so to have access to the deodorant both squeezing the can as well as pressing the button is required. By releasing the squeezing the spray opening and its button moves back into the cylindrical hull of the can.
Changes in form This prototype retains the original cylindrical shape and about the same length. But instead of a plastic turning handle on top of the can there are two squeeze buttons on the side of the can, which both have to be pressed to be able to spray deodorant. Changes in function This prototype retains the same functions as the original object; a portable pressurized container for deodorant that has a security trick to prevent unwanted spraying. Changes in interaction When the two buttons on the side are pressed and held down(at the same time), the spray button and the spray opening both slide out on top of the can rather than staying on the same spot as in the original object. At that point the user can choose to either press the spray button and have his deodorant, or to release these side buttons thus letting the spray opening and button slide back into the cylindrical shape again. That last action returns the object into its default state: the protected position where it is impossible to use the spray button. Changes in Movement The spatial dynamic quality dimension that has changed is that from a-symmetrical to symmetrical. The two squeezing buttons on the side are symmetrical compared to the turning handle in the original object, while the function remains the same. However, the 15 | P a g e
main movement here is still on a spot and small – the overall form of the can did not change much and thus does not allow for these movement qualities to change.
Jaap Norbruis
For the first iteration I analyzed an electric guitar on it’s dynamic qualities dimensions: You play an electric guitar sliding with your left hand over the neck of the guitar to ‘select’ different tones (chords), with your right hand and under arm you move vertical over the guitar body to play the rhythm. Other functions on the guitar are volume tone and different the selection between elements. These functions are to be changed by turning knobs to tune tone and volume and a toggle switch between elements.
16 | P a g e
Left hand dynamic quality dimension: - Through space - Left-Right - Ongoing - Free flow - Uncontrolled - Sustained - Over all - Active weight - Grand
Right hand dynamic quality dimension: - Through space - Up-down - Ongoing - Free flow - Uncontrolled - Sustained
The dynamic quality dimension: - On a spot - Stops/accents - Bound flow - Controlled - Interrupted - Detailed - Passive weight - Small
These dynamic abilities of the buttons do not fit in the freedom and expressionistic ways that the main functions of the guitar offer. Point of improvement for the dynamic qualities of the buttons: - Through space - Free flow -Grand - Active weight -Ongoing - Uncontrolled -Sustained Description of what I did, how did I make it? To increase the electric guitar in it’s dynamic qualities I replaced the buttons by a flexible neck, the three functions of the buttons(volume up/down, tone up/down and the selecting of different elements) where replaced by movement of the guitar neck. -
neck up tone up / neck down tone down neck towards you volume down / neck towards crowd volume up turn neck toward you less elements / turn neck away more elements
Reflection What has changed in the movement? - on a spot to through space - stops/accents to ongoing - interrupted to sustained - passive weight to active weight - bound flow to free flow What has changed in the form?
17 | P a g e
- The guitar is more flexible - The guitar is more complex What has changed in the function? - changing volume, tone and selection of elements has become easier - keeping the same volume, tone and selection of elements has become harder - visual feedback of volume, tone and selection of elements has become smaller What has changed in the interaction? -
the change of volume, tone and selection of elements has become ongoing the playing experience has become more free flow the change of volume, tone and selection of elements had become “uncontrolled� and now requires active weight the overall required movement has become grander and more through space
Context This product enables a musician to experience with his music, because the adjusting of volume, tone and the selection of elements are more sensitive the musician will be able to put even more emotion into his music. The overall experience of playing electric guitar will change because the chance that a song you play will sound the same the second time you play it is minimal this increases the feeling of freedom. The downside of this product is that user gets little more than audible feedback on the volume, tone and selection of elements. Conclusion A side affect of increasing the freedom of playing an electric guitar is that it has become more uncontrolled, this can be seen as positive or negative. In both ways it does redefine the essence and experience of playing electric guitar.
18 | P a g e
Tijmen van Gurp
What has changed in the form? The dimensions are more or less the same. The place of the batteries is the same. And the place where the speakers are is the same. The form of this product is not so functional, and should be changed in the future. A possibility could be that the speakers float a bit above the battery pack, or that the battery pack is shaped like a half moon. What has changed in the function? In terms of function the interaction in how you open the speakers is changed. You can now open the speakers more easily it needs less handling before it is opened. And you can stop opening the speakers all the time, and it will keep its form. This opening is symmetrical which makes the way it sends out the sound different in comparison of the original product. What has changed in the interaction? The opening interaction of this product changed obviously. Other things could have been changed as well but I didn’t focus on them. I think that for opening the speakers there are 2 possibilities. One you hold the standing part (the battery pack of the speakers) and pull one of the speakers down. The other speaker will automatically follow. Another way would be to grab both speakers and pull them out of each other 19 | P a g e
which would work well for the first part of the movement, but for opening it entirely you need to make the opening movement easy without friction, or you need to place the battery pack on a surface for the last part of the movement (opening it entirely). I prefer to open it by one hand on the battery pack and one on the speaker part. Closing can be really simple by just squeezing the 2 boxes too each other in one hand.
Context While using this prototype I think that opening could be nicer if you could open it even further than 180 degrees so that you have total freedom to which direction the sound goes, how the product looks, and what you can do with it. I think that opening it in a symmetrical way like this is more like opening a book. An opportunity could be that opening the speakers influences the volume. Opening the speakers further will produce more sound, closing the speakers will shut it off. A downside to this prototype is that making the movement symmetrical is not particularly making it more functional. The fact that you can put it in every position you want is good but for that you don’t need the symmetry. In the future I will think of making more possibilities for repositioning the speakers. 20 | P a g e
Reflection In the beginning I had no idea where to begin, the product seemed to me very static to me. I started with just using it as if I would do normally, and I wrote everything I thought down in a story. After doing that I had some more insight in how the product worked and I could write down some points I liked and disliked. At this stage I had noticed the basic qualities of the product. Dividing these qualities into form function movement and interaction taught me to make a distinction between these qualities. I choose to change the moving quality of the opening and closing part of this product, and make the opening movement from asymmetrical to symmetrical. You need to hold the speakers in a different way than before to open it, that is not necessarily an improvement, but the way you can stop opening the movement all the time is. Group Discussion (from a movement perspective) Input from the other prototypes, tightening To tighten my prototype more I had to make my movement more free, and unbound. The screen of the camera was totally free and could move through the space wherever you want. And the “neck� of guitar could move in every direction with boundaries but not as clear as my prototype. By the Deo can the movement was even smaller, so Hugo also had to make his movement more free.
Group discussion We used a tightening exercise to compare our prototypes, we listed the change in movement properties of each prototype compared to the original product and connected these properties. We saw that of the four objects, three were very similar (the guitar, the speakers and the camera) and that the deodorant did not share many movement properties with the others.
21 | P a g e
The three similar prototypes all had fluent, uncontrolled and ongoing movements. Of these three objects, the guitar and the camera were the most related. These also had similar movements through space and were free flow. The speakers’ movements were not through space, but were especially bound in their flow. The guitar and the camera could be moved everywhere, whereas the speakers’ movement was limited to opening up.
22 | P a g e
The speakers did resembled the deodorant in having a symmetrical movement, the deodorant needs to be pressed on the sides at the same time and the speakers opening is the same for both sides. The speakers’ movement, however, is more uncontrolled, as the user decides when the opening is far enough. The deodorant’s movement is controlled by the interaction: you either press it or you don’t.
23 | P a g e
2: Second iteration Matthijs Zwinderman
It was difficult to add more structure to the movement of the concept, because in the last iteration the focus was on free flow, which is an opposite of structure. I wanted to keep the movement in the mid-range and in general space. I came up with two options to add structure: either in the interaction (by adding meaning to a type of movement, for instance, shaking the camera to make a picture) or by making physical guides (a rails, etc.). Because adding movement in the interaction is difficult to visualize and because I wanted to try a different technique of building the prototype, I decided upon making a framework. In this iteration I used cart-board, paper, wooden sticks, rope and lego. The “camera� is the entire device. The screen is attached to wires and can be positioned in a 2D space, the framework in which the screen hangs can rotate around a hinge next to the shooter-release-button. The form of the camera is changed dramatically in comparison to the previous iteration and the original product. It is much larger and heavier. The rotation part of the screen has become more fragile, due to the ropes and because there is a heavy framework that is connected to only one rotational point. Taking photos from an unusual standpoint is still possible, but it has been limited. Lifting the camera up to take photos over a crowd or holding it around a corner is very 24 | P a g e
difficult due to the weight and its size. Due to its size the weight distribution is also unfavorable. Besides being difficult in some situations, some photos are impossible to shoot now: the camera might not fit in the space necessary to take the photo. Other functionality changes are the means of keeping the camera with you, the current device no longer fits in the original satchel. The device has some interesting interaction possibilities. The screen can now be fixed in space which was not possible in the previous iteration and only limited in the original product. This could result in a more static way of photo taking, where the camera stands still and people have to move in front of it. Personally, I want to make photos whenever I want. The main reason I prefer hand-held cameras over DSLR-s (the large, more professional cameras), is that they are easier to carry with me and more flexible in confined spaces. I would not carry a large and heavy camera with me all the time, making the current iteration very unsuitable. Group work The group work was a loosening exercise, in which we tried to combine the movements of different objects. Besides the movements, we also looked at combinations of form, function and interaction and the effect of changing such an aspect on the other aspects. In the group discussion we looked at the planes of each interaction, mine has two translation axis (x,y) and one rotation axis (z). This is true for the guitar-object as well. When we further discussed our prototypes, I liked the idea of the opening movement in the speakers-concept. This was a movement that was present in the original product, but did not come back in other iterations. We discussed different ways of how to add this opening: by sliding the screen out of the camera, or by flapping it open (as in the original product). The most interesting of these was the foldable screen. By folding open the screen the size can be adjusted, making it possible to switch between taking a normal or panoramic photo. Another possibility is that the screen can be folded around someones face, as a sort of private theatre. With respect to the previous iteration, the main change in movement is in flow. The first iteration was a clear example of free flow, whereas this one is very much bound flow, due to the screen position being limited by the framework. This is also the reason that the movement went from open to being closed. To move the screen, a user can only move in one dimension at a time. This makes the entire movement of changing the screen position staccato (whereas it previously was ongoing). To take the screen from the bottom left to the upper right, a user first moves it from left to right and then from bottom to top, instead of doing it in one simple move.
25 | P a g e
Hugo Romer How do I use the product now? Instead of turning and pulling down a handle or squeezing two buttons I now have to make a very abrupt movement to shake out the spray opening. Once I have shaken it out (which happens at the bottom) it already started spraying, without having to push a spray button. When I’m done using the deodorant I make an upward shake movement (also pretty abrupt) to make the spray opening go back into the container again.
Changes in form While the cylindrical shape of the original object is still here, the object has now become slightly longer when extended – just like prototype number 2. The button to start spraying from the original object and also from the second prototype has now disappeared. Changes in function The core functions remain the same: a portable pressurized deodorant container that offers protection for unwanted spraying. Changes in interaction To unlock the spray opening in this prototype, one needs to make a staccato downward shake movement to make the spray opening part come out. Once this has been done, the spray opening automatically starts spraying – this forces the user to immediately move the spraying can to his armpits for example, so there is very little time for stopping after the spray opening has come out. Once the deodorant has been 26 | P a g e
applied using mostly fluent movements along the body, this action has to be ended by another abrupt movement to stop the spraying hence activating the unwanted spraying prevention again. This last piece of interaction is the opposite of the first interaction, now one has to make an upward staccato movement to slide the spray opening part back into the can. Changes in movement Whereas in the previous objects there was no such thing as a fluent movement, the staccato movement has gained more importance in this prototype and its interaction. There is now also a clear restriction to one dimension because there are no handles that have to be turned (2D) or buttons that have to be pushed or squeezed (also 2D). Also because the actual interaction happens when you open or close the spray opening part, a main movement quality of forces in this object is bound flow – the only movement that happens is restricted to only one dimension. It moves along the longitudinal axis of the entire object.
Jaap Norbruis
Input from group discussion (tightening):
27 | P a g e
In this group discussion we looked for opposites. Two of my group members had a design with many boundaries the boxes of Tijmen (one axle) and Hugo’s Deodorant spray(very little movement), where Martijn’s camera screen was totally free and could move “freely” through the space and the “neck” of my guitar could move in almost every direction. There was decided that to tighten my product more in the next iteration I had to look for boundaries. Description of what I did, how did I make it? To increase the boundaries in my product I built two rails with stops that guide the neck along two axles. The three functions of the buttons (volume up/down, tone up/down and the selecting of different elements) where still adjusted via the movement of the guitar neck. -
neck up tone up / neck down tone down neck towards you volume down / neck towards crowd volume up turn neck toward you less elements / turn neck away more elements
Reflection What has changed in the movement? - fluent to staccato - small to grand - light to heavy What has changed in the form? - The guitar is more flexible - The guitar is more complex What has changed in the function? - changing volume, tone and selection of elements has become easier What has changed in the interaction? the playing experience has become more aggressive because you really have to pouch and pull the guitar neck - the overall required movement has become grander and more through space Context -
This product forces a musician to play with more aggression since changing volume, tone or amount of elements requires strong short actions. This will also lead to a 28 | P a g e
change in the overall sound the electric guitar produces this will become more staccato. The downside of this product is that there are relatively little stops and thus in this product the boundaries decrease the options the musician has. Conclusion By adding boundaries to my product it became less precise. The product enables the user to show his emotion.
Tijmen van Gurp
Description of what I did, how did I make it? The movement had to be more free ongoing and fluently. I made this by connecting four blocks of wood to each other connected with joints. I first tested how I wanted to let the opening and closing work by connecting different blocks to each other. I noticed that with 3 blocks the interaction was not as good as with 4 blocks. With 4 blocks you could simply do more without making the product too uncontrolled.
29 | P a g e
What has changed in the form? The form is almost the same in size if you fold It up, but because of an extra connection it is longer if you unfold the speakers, and the joints are over the whole length of the speaker instead of integrated in the center of the product. What has changed in the function? The prototype has an extra compartment if you compare it to the original product. Because it has an extra compartment you can say that each compartment has a different function. The 2 boxes in the middle are the battery pack and the amplifier, and the 2 boxes at the outside are the speakers. It can open in different ways and because of its form you can position it in various ways. What has changed in interaction? The opening has become freer. If you hold one speaker and lift that one up, you can open the speakers just by one hand. You can lay the speakers down like a snake, and position each part in the direction you want. Putting in the batteries would be different because I split the center part of the speakers into 2 compartments the battery compartment is smaller. You would then have to slide in the batteries instead of lifting the cap. The movement has become more playful, less detailed and less controlled than the original product. You have different ways of opening, you can open only the speakers and leave the center part closed, or open only the center part and leave the rest closed. While laying it down on a table it automatically follows a w shape which looks your own personal space of sound, and is more stable than the original product.
30 | P a g e
Context In the future I think that would be good to make it possible to connect the volume to opening of the center part. More open will increase the volume, more closed will decrease the volume or turn it off. This could work because the middle part can move separately. Because the speakers are out of one piece and there is a fixed connection, it is possible to wire everything. The downside of this prototype is that it will not close entirely, and it opens really easily. In the future I should add magnetic stripes so that if it is in its fold up position it is as small as possible. I think the joints have to be more hidden in the device so that it seems like if they are connected magically. And if the joints have a little more friction it would be possible to lay it down in a shape you want without collapsing automatically.
31 | P a g e
Group discussion
32 | P a g e
3: Third iteration Matthijs Zwinderman
I wanted to make a less fragile prototype, compared with the previous iteration. I decided to rethink the structured movement, so that it would be smaller but still keeping the two translation planes and one rotation plane. Besides this, I wanted to add the foldable screen, which we came up in our group discussion. I wanted to make my prototype out of a material that I’ve never used before, which is why this iteration was made with foam and an iron strip. The strip can rotate around its base, and the screen is foldable and can slide up and down the strip. After folding the screen, it is exactly as big as the camera. A folded up screen that is moved down the strip results in a compact camera (with an iron strip sticking out). There is a huge change in form over the previous iteration. The camera as a whole has become much smaller and lighter. This iteration looks more like the original product. Another important change is the protrusions, in this iteration there is only one (the metal strip), in the other iteration there was a large framework. This iteration is more sturdy than the previous one. The function of this iteration has extended from a focus on taking pictures to also viewing them. Due to the large screen it is possible to show more photos at once (for instance making it possible to compare and delete). It is also possible to ‘fold’ the screen around ones face and experience the photos in a closer way. Taking pictures has also been improved: previously when taking panorama pictures, there would be huge black bars in the image. These are now gone, as the entire screen can be filled. 33 | P a g e
The interaction with this concept is much ‘nicer’ than with the previous iteration. This is because the movement is much more fluent. I also like that the rotation is now ongoing and smooth. Whereas the previous iteration did not invite to play with, I found that the interaction was much more obvious in this one. In relation to the original product, the screen cannot be rotated towards the subject in the photo. This is a downside, as I use the camera to take photos of myself and friends sometimes. The screen can not rotate with respect to the metal strip, meaning that it its position is not always optimal. For instance: putting the screen to the left side of the camera, makes the screen very long. Group discussion In the group discussion we talked about four movement properties that were all present in our concepts. These were the dimensionality, the detail and the fluidity. We ordered our prototypes to go from less to more dimensions, from detailed to overall and from fluency to staccato. In these comparisons, my prototype was not an extreme version of any of these movements. What this discussion showed very well, was that our different prototypes can have very similar movements. Because of this, I decided I would try to keep the same movement properties and create a different shape to this. In comparison with the previous iteration, the movement with this prototype is on a spot in stead of through space. The movement of the screen is centered around one pivot point. The movement went from stops to ongoing, in the rotation axis. Although the screen in the previous iteration could also be rotated indefinitely, this iteration makes that movement much smoother. Of course, there are still two stops in moving the screen: the base of the metal strip and the top of the strip, so as a whole this prototype would still be classified as having stops. I experienced it to also went from closed to open, because of the smoother motion. The element of expanding is not only present in the foldable screen, but also in moving the screen from the base of the strip to the top. The device as a whole seems to open in that way. In the previous iteration, the framework was always present, even if the screen was in the bottom. The flow of this prototype is more bound than in the previous one. This is because the screen can not be rotated towards the subject.
34 | P a g e
Hugo Romer How do I use the product now? When I pick up the object, I immediately feel and see how it is supposed to lay in my hand. I bring the object with my open hand towards my body and squeeze it entirely, and the deodorant sprays out. Until I release the squeezed object it continues spraying, just like an old-fashioned perfume pump.
Changes in form The original cylinder shape has disappeared in this prototype. Instead, the 2D circle now has become 3D: the object is now an orb that is split in half, and lying open like a shell. Both halves contain deodorant spray and in the middle of these halves is the spray opening. A spring is keeping the two compartments from touching each other initially, but also allows for squeezing both together. Changes in function In this object the original main functionality is still there – a portable deodorant container. The most important sub functionality however, the protection against unwanted spraying, is completely gone. In fact, the orb-shaped object with two compartments that have a substantial surface might even be more prone to unwanted spraying in bags because of its extra squeezable shape. I have not thought of this disappearing function when I made this prototype, I mostly focused on the new movement qualities that this prototype was going to get. Changes in interaction
35 | P a g e
This is the first prototype where the form might actually suggest the movement in order to use the product correctly. When you see the orb-shaped object with a spring in between the two halves, it is obvious that these halves can move towards each other. A clear showing of the spray opening even suggests the function of the product. This could be called an improved pre-interaction compared to all the previous prototypes as well as the original object. As in the previous iteration, a squeezing interaction is required in order to reach its main functionality; spraying deodorant. However because the unwanted spray prevention functionality was left out the squeezing could be responsible directly for the spraying, not for unlocking and readying for spraying as in prototype 1. Changes in movement While the object’s form has become more of a three-dimensional shape, the dimensional movement still is mostly one-dimensional. An important spatiality movement change is the shrinking/expanding. The previous prototypes all had some sort of extending movement as a result of interaction or as part of interaction, while the main interaction in this iteration consist of shrinking down, squeezing or perhaps a closing movement.
36 | P a g e
Jaap Norbruis
Input from group discussion (loosening) In this group discussion we looked for inspiration in each others products, I was inspired by the camera of Mathijs that was in the general space and had grand movements. I decided to focus on general space and grand movements in the third iteration. Description of what I did, how did I make it? To make my product movement more into the general space I decided that the product position in relation to the body should change instead of a detail on the product. To convert this movement into the change of volume, tone and selection of elements I used the guitar strap. In the new product the strap is made from elastic fabric conductive yarn to measure the difference in resistance. The guitar movement has the following results: - guitar up tone up / guitar down tone down - guitar towards you volume down / guitar towards crowd volume up - guitar to the right less elements / guitar to the right more elements Reflection What has changed in the movement? 37 | P a g e
- On spot to over all - Personal space to general space What has changed in the function? To change volume, tone and the amount of elements the position of the guitar has to be changed - The required guitar movement makes it almost impossible to play the guitar What has changed in the interaction? -
-
the playing experience has become more expressive the overall required movement has become grander and more through space interaction has become uncomfortable
Context Playing an electric guitar becomes a more expressive experience because you really “push� the music into the crowd. Conclusion This product enables musicians to express their selves not only with their music but also with the related movement. The downside of this product is that it is hard/impossible to combine both the product movement and the playing of the guitar.
38 | P a g e
Tijmen van Gurp
Description of what I did, how did I make it? Again I used wooden blocks to represent the speakers, amplifier and battery pack. But this time I made a connection with elastic to connect the whole thing, and wooden pins and holes for connecting the blocs. Because all the pins fit in every hole the product can be reshaped in many ways which makes it possible to create your own personal sound system. What has changed in the form? If the prototype is disabled and the blocks are piled up on each other it has the same dimensions as the original product. But then in there are some pins and holes at every the side of the speakers. The connection between the blocks is even freer than the previous prototype. The speakers can turn and twist in every direction. Once you start connecting speakers to each other the prototype gets stiffer and gets his shape. Because of the numbers of holes and pins, various ways of connecting the blocks is possible.
39 | P a g e
What has changed in the function? Opening and closing has become a very detailed movement, which is more building and disabling than a specific fixed opening and closing. The end result is still the same. To get sound out of the speakers you need to connect the blocks to connect the wires. The elastic is only there to keep them together and give some boundaries.
What has changed in the interaction? The movement has become very controlled, but it is a more sagital movement. There are more detailed parts in it and the movements are smaller than the previous one. But because of the possibilities with connecting the blocks the movement is freer. While just holding the blocks in your hand while disabled it feels really uncontrolled and irregular, there are not so many boundaries to which they can move. Connecting has become the most important new value in terms of interaction. The user can search how he wants to connect his speakers to each other. 40 | P a g e
Context If this product was a real product I would want to have more than one speaker set, and be able to connect multiple speakers to each other. I want that different connections give different sounds. Giving this difference in sound the many possibilities of connecting would not only have a playful effect but also a more functional experience. I think that there are a lot of opportunities of connecting parts in whatever way you want. Think of connecting an extra bass set, or connecting a external battery pack. Do you want to give sound to every direction or just to your personal spot? Maybe it is possible to assign an equalizer to each different connection of blocks. Can you share music by clicking it to a speaker set of someone else? If I would actually build it I would want the elastic to be more elastic, and stronger. That if you disable the speaker to a shape as small as possible. And the place where the elastic is now might not be possible because it goes through a hole in the middle where normally the speaker would be. Downside of this prototype is that it is not really easy to start you music; you need even more handlings than the original product before the music starts. And the pins are sticking out the product which makes the product less smooth and touchable.
41 | P a g e
Group discussion Input from the other prototypes, loosening In this session I saw that my second prototype was looser than the first prototype. But still there were a lot of possibilities by making the movement more 3Dmensional. Because the opening and closing movement were still in one plane. I decided to hold on a little bit to the previous prototype by using the same size of blocks but a different kind of connection which allows for new shapes and new interactions.
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
4: Fourth iteration Matthijs Zwinderman
Because I saw in the previous iteration that the same movement can be accomplished with a completely different form, I wanted to keep all of the movements of the previous iteration for this iteration and try to reach a different implementation in the prototype. The specific movements I wanted to keep were the dimensionality (one plane with two translation-axis and one rotation-point), on-the-spot, expanding, opening and bound flow. For this iteration I thought I would use a combination of wire mesh with clay as I imagined this would give me much freedom to work with. Besides clay and wire mesh, I wanted an expanding rod, which I made from wire mesh and a stick. In comparison with the previous iteration, this prototype can be made even smaller by closing it. After closing, the camera is very light and small. The screen itself is no longer foldable, but instead the folding is incorporated in the supporting rod. Another change in form is that the screen can be rotated, by rotating the top part of the rod. Because the screen can be rotated on the top, it’s now possible again for the subject to see the photograph as it is being taken. The functionality of making panorama photos has disappeared and so has the functionality of showing multiple photos at once. In return for this, the screen can be rotated to account for the rotation of the camera. 44 | P a g e
Interaction with the camera is expanded. It is now possible to put it in a protective case again and to protect the screen by folding it towards the camera. In comparison with the original camera, there is a larger freedom in taking photos. The camera can be held at a larger distance from the user’s view. Although my goal was to keep the movements as much the same as possible, there have been significant changes in some of the movements. Moving the screen up and down was a very fluent movement in the previous iteration (just slide the screen on the metal strip), it now has many stops, one for connector. Due this, the flow is even more bound. The movement of expansion is again increased, the whole device can now be made larger by moving the screen up (instead of always having a metal strip protruding from the top).
Hugo Romer How do I use the product now? I grab the two first-size parts of which the object consists now. While I aim for my armpits with the two spray openings I stretch the elastic connection that is in between the two parts, because otherwise I cannot reach both armpits. I feel that when I stretch this elastic, the compartments are triggered to start spraying in whatever direction I point them. When I’m done moving, aiming and simultaneously spraying deodorant around my body I loosen the stretch between the two parts and put the object back on a cupboard. Because there is no longer a tension on the elastic between the two parts, the product has stopped spraying deodorant.
45 | P a g e
Changes in form This prototype consists of two separate compartments with deodorant spray and a spray opening on each of these parts. The parts are connected through an elastic, and when these two objects move away from each other this elastic builds tension. The elastic allows for a maximum distance of one meter between the two compartments, in all possible directions. Changes in function In this object the original functionalities have been restored, unlike prototype 3. When the two separate parts are within 30 centimeters of range of each other, nothing happens. When this range is exceeded, both parts trigger to start spraying deodorant until they are back within range. This is the actual unwanted spray protection mentioned in earlier prototypes and the original object, because when you decide to place this object in your bag for instance and carelessly throw both parts in, they are still far from the range threshold where they will start spraying deodorant. For the compartments to spray there is a certain deliberate force required, a force that cannot occur in a backpack for example. This prototype still is highly portable, and therefore retaining the main functionality of the original object. Changes in movement The most notable change in movement qualities is that of bound flow to free flow. In order to get deodorant out of the object you need to make an unpredictable movement that will never be exactly the same once you repeat it, unlike previous prototypes where a slide or button constrained the unlocking movement. Along with free flow, the movement has also evolved two dimensions: from one dimension in the previous three iterations to three dimensions in this object. The free flow however is still restricted to the personal space, just like all the other prototypes and the original object. One thing that should be noticed is that the function of unlocking the unwanted spray prevention here is overlapping the function of getting deodorant out of the object. Therefore, the movement changes here apply to two functions instead of the unlocking function I discussed in previous iterations. In prototype 3 the function of getting deodorant out of the object was also discussed in the changes in movement part, but in that prototype the unlocking function had totally disappeared.
46 | P a g e
Jaap Norbruis
Input from group discussion (tightening): In this group discussion we rated our prototypes on matching terms of movement. We chose for: Dimensions Fluent/staccato Overall/detailed During the discussion I noticed that the products of others had more visual feedback on the actions than my earlier iterations. Within the last iteration I focused on a functional dimensional product that gives visual feedback. Description of what I did, how did I make it? To increase the visual feedback of my earlier iterations I chose to work with see through materials and colored “conductive� fluids. These fluids translate the guitars movement to a change in tone, volume and amount of elements and give visual feedback
47 | P a g e
-
neck up tone up / neck down tone down neck towards you volume down / neck towards crowd volume up turn neck toward you less elements / turn neck away more elements
Reflection What has changed in the movement? -
stops/accents to ongoing
- interrupted to sustained - bound flow to free flow What has changed in the form? - The guitar is more flexible - The guitar is more complex What has changed in the function? - changing volume, tone and selection of elements has become easier and visible What has changed in the interaction? -
The change of tone, volume and selection has become visual and audible which will increase the playing comfort. the overall required movement has become grander and more through space
Context This product enables a musician to “play� with volume, tone and amount of elements because of the visible boundaries the musician gets feedback on his actions. Conclusion The interaction is improved but the visual feedback might distract the musician.
48 | P a g e
Tijmen van Gurp
Group Discussion In the second tightening action we compared each prototype on 3 movement qualities and analyzed them. We ranked them and putted them in order of more or less dimensional, and more staccato, or more fluent, and more overall or detailed. By discussing about these qualities we got a better understanding of the qualities and our products. I think that my product jumped out a bit, because it was very dimensional and detailed. For the next iteration I want to see what the effect is if I make these qualities even bigger. That means even more dimensional and more detailed, but in such a way that I keep the function. Description of what I did, how did I make it? The limitations I had with the elastic should be gone if I want to make it more dimensional and detailed. I made four blocks again and put in lithe magnets which hold them together. By putting the magnets at all the sides I made it possible to connect each block to each other in the order you prefer.
49 | P a g e
Reflection: What has changed in the form? In comparison with the original product this prototype has also the same dimensions. It almost the same as the previous prototype, only the pins and the elastics are missing now. And the connection between the blocks are made with little magnets implemented in the wood. What has changed in the function? The form influences the interaction and thereby the function. It is still a speaker set, but now it is your own puzzle which you have to assemble before sound is coming out of the speakers. Again different connections can mean difference in sound. The magnets functions as a connection to stick them together but also the electricity and the sound could go through these magnets. What has changed in the interaction? The magnets make it at one end really easy to disassemble the speakers but once you start putting them together you have to search for the right piece, and the right side. This searching makes it a more puzzle, and a conscious action. It is more in your personal space, and more relaxed than the previous prototype. Clicking them together is more staccato than connecting blocks with sticks and holes because the moment they connect to each other you have a fast acceleration and then deceleration. Because the magnets ha a north and a south pole you can only connect them in one way, and it is a bit searching if they want to connect. Context If could buy this product in the store I want to be able to make it as big as I want by connecting more power blocks and more speakers to it. The magnets are now not 50 | P a g e
lined out as well as I intended. In the future the magnets have to be so implemented that they can click on each other in whatever you way you want. In this way you can build your own music tower, lay down figures of blocks or exchange different styles of blocks with other people. Maybe it possible to get a certain genre speaker, like a rock speaker or a classical speaker. Each one designed for optimal sound and interaction. The downsides of this prototype are that you need to spend time to find the right way of connecting them. But it also makes it more playful and interesting. And of course you can loose different parts. I take them with me when I travel, so for that purpose it might not be so handy.
51 | P a g e
5: Reflections Matthijs Zwinderman I chose to do this assignment, because I wanted to improve on Ideas and Concepts. I come from a scientific study (Artificial Intelligence, at the University of Groningen) and therefor need to work specifically on design-competencies. My main goal of doing this assignment was to learn how to structurally think about concepts in an abstract way. The movements method is one way to do this. The first experience with using movement properties to communicate with my teammates was that this is hard, as the movement-properties do not mean the same thing for everybody. At the end of the assignment, we had a more common understanding about the properties, but we could still have discussions about the meaning. There is a huge difference in explaining the movement properties in view of the object and in view of the person using the object. This is something I like about the properties, but is also a source for confusion. It would have helped if this was formalized a bit more. Because the meaning was not the same for everyone, I think it would be hard to use this method in future group projects, if the people are not experienced with these properties. In the future, I would use movement analysis for group projects, but perhaps not in a brainstorm session (but rather as an explanation).
My experience in building low-fi prototypes was very limited before this assignment. I tried to use a different type of material for each prototype to improve upon this. However, I have noticed by looking at the other prototypes, that there are many more ways to create low-fi prototypes. Because I first thought of the movement and form, before I made my prototypes, I tried to resemble them as close as possible to my ideas. In my prototypes I therefor did not try out the more ‘exotic’ options. This has inspired me to do ‘play’ with materials outside
52 | P a g e
of an assignment, to try out several methods of creating prototypes without being limited in time. I am reasonably satisfied with the prototypes, except with the fourth iteration. Here I tried out a method (wire mesh with clay), that to me seemed to have real potential. I imagined that configuring the wire mesh would be easy, and by using clay I could make a nice and smooth surface. When trying to build the prototype, I found it was exactly the opposite. I tried to get this right for a very long time, but in the end I am still not satisfied with it. I will not use wire mesh and clay immediately for a prototype again, but I will try and find a means of using these two materials differently. The clay is very useful in thinking with my hands (I am planning on following how to draw a cup of tea in the next semester to improve this differently), and the wire-mesh is nice as it is very sturdy. In the final presentation, I found that I was not as focused as I want to be during such a presentation. I was late for the meeting (which was out of my hands), and did not take the time to re-order my thoughts. I know that I can do better presentations, but I have learned that I need to take a one-minute ‘zen-moment’ before doing them. My main concern with the presentation was that it was not as structured as I would like them to be. I did not tell everything I wanted and I did not motivate my answers in the way I wanted. Besides improving on Ideas and Concepts, I experienced a new design method as well, (applying abstraction on an original object) improving on Design and Research Processes. As discussed before, I plan on using this skill in future projects.
Hugo Romer This assignment has taught me a new way of approaching design whenever I am out of ideas or stuck in my thoughts thinking too limited. The approach of seeing a design situation as a dance of movement where the to be designed object has interactional relationships with other objects, users and the surrounding space was totally new for me. Analyzing and abstracting design objects down to movement qualities and thinking of a next iteration either by enlarging these qualities (tightening) or by looking at seemingly irrelevant and opposite movement qualities (loosening) can result in some very interesting ideas. I think these abstraction techniques are the first tools I’m going to reach out for whenever I’m low on inspiration for my project or an assignment. I am also aware that too much abstraction is a trap I must look out for. Endlessly analyzing movement qualities and the tendency of abstracting almost everything related to the design object can result in loss of the overview, and in the worst case a total waste of time. I realize that during the abstraction process it is important to make 53 | P a g e
links to the essences of the original design object, to make links back to reality. Where form, interaction and movement qualities can be changed throughout a design iteration, the actual function is the only grip you have.
Jaap Norbruis Looking back on the different iterations I have gone through I notice that I only focused on the interaction with the product in terms of movement and function, where others changed shapes and functions of their product. In next a next iteration I would try to get on an even more abstract level to leave standard form and function in order to create new ways of interaction. During this assignment I enjoyed the group meetings where we discussed our work widened and focused our views. In future projects and assignments I will use these techniques to achieve higher levels of abstraction.
Tijmen van Gurp The reflection of Tijmen will be posted on IDCompass.
54 | P a g e