#studioiv

Final Fabrication Reflections

Week 13: 22-26/10/18

The whole fabrication process has been super hectic, stressful and challenging. Here is what I learnt:

1) You got to plan for the unplanned

While I did a pretty thorough construction plan and basic timetable, things still went wrong which ended up eating more time.

Things take time

Before heading into final construction, I had completely forgotten about the prototyping phase for construction. While I had done cardboard mock-ups, I still had to do iterations on how that would translate into the final materials. So, although I had planned to leave a month for final fabrication, the prototyping phase took up about 3 weeks of that. Thus, in the end I was left with about 1 week for final fabrication. At the time, I thought that would be just enough time, now I realise that this was not enough time at all because things took longer than I expected.

On top of that, my design has a lot of complex components and I didn’t fully realise was how long each component would take. Especially regarding the mass production of the blocks. Making a few blocks was a very quick process, however, making about 120 was a very long process. And upon reflection, to save time I could’ve worked a bit smarter. E.g. instead of cutting up all the blocks and then gluing them, I could’ve glued the arcs all together and then cut them up once they had dried.

Thus, in future, I’ve should slightly over-estimate how long each element takes so that I leave sufficient time for each.

Planning a Plan B is important

Before going into construction, I didn’t create a plan B. So, when things got behind, I had to think on the spot about what I should prioritise next. Upon reflection, as a result, I may not have made the most informed decision compared to if I had considered this beforehand. For example, when I was running out of time near the end of the week, I pushed the first coat of stain to Friday afternoon. Now, I realise I should have prioritised the functionality of the design over the aesthetic, and I could have left the staining till Saturday afternoon/Sunday morning.  Had I planned for this earlier, this would have bought me 2 more hours in the 3D lab to really work on the slider mechanism.

Thus next time, I should make a contingency plan of some sort as well as fully prioritise what is necessary to fulfilling the purpose. Which leads onto…..

2) Going back to the purpose.

Amidst the whole process of sorting out the fabrication, it was easy to lose sight of the overall purpose of the project. Thus, it was a matter or prioritising the different agents of necessities i.e. functionality vs. aesthetics. I don’t think I did this particularly well because I was rushed and this was reflected in the overall design of the kinetic table.

Upon reflection, there were some aspects of the design that were more complicated than they needed to be. For example, I could’ve fulfilled my purpose in a much simpler way by just creating a rectangular table. While this wouldn’t have necessarily fulfilled my aesthetic desire, in the end I would have more easily gotten a working prototype that people could interact with.  

This then leads onto….

3) Keep it Simple Stupid

Throughout this process, I had to continually consider how I could simplify the design so that it could still achieve the same outcome but in a more efficient way. From this, I was reminded that the first idea generally is not the best idea and that there are other ways to do it. For example, with the sliders, I realised that I didn’t need to use a dowel to support the slider, but I could instead just double the wooden insert leftover from cutting the base board

4) Two is better than One

So many of my friends were so kind and helped me out with my project where they could. This meant so much and really sped up the process. While I have really enjoyed working by myself this semester regarding the idea development and prototyping phase, for the fabrication, I really struggled to do everything by myself.

Shout out to Olivia, Carol, Andrew, Vaani and Sheena. You guys are the best :)

Method

My contribution to the group involved working on the Augmented Reality research and implementation, as well as the app development and 3D modelling. I used Google’s HelloAR as a base, to further develop and learn AR development in Unity.

https://developers.google.com/ar/develop/unity/tutorials/hello-ar-sample

I used ‘SpeedTutor’ to understand the basics of building the app, including learning to import UI, making the buttons, implemented the AR models and resizing them to fit the screen, as well as scripting the music to run throughout the play mode.

https://youtu.be/FrJogRBSzFo

At first, Vaani and I tried using MapBox SKD for the geolocation aspect of the app, although we didn’t end up using it, we still would have liked it in our app. During the holidays, I looked at many tutorials to follow them, to have a map that in order to have a map that displays the accurate location of the user during the time of use. This was a difficult process and required more time and research, which why we postponed learning this aspect. Instead, we decided to have a still image of the map that highlights the three locations using a 'location pin,' to inform the users to walk to that site.

https://www.mapbox.com/

 Techniques used:

·         Unity: I used this software for the App and AR development/building

·         Fusion360: This was used to create the 3D models for the AR section.

·         S8 prototyping: I’ve used the S8 Samsung phone to a prototype version of the app/AR/Stories.

·         Mapbox: I used the Mapbox SDK for Unity to learn the geolocation part of the app.

Reflection

 Reflection

  This Semester I built an app with the help of my team members.  I utilised Unity as my main tool for building the app and used ARCore to develop the Augmented Reality aspects. ARCore requires the use of a compatible phone which meant I had to purchase one. Using this technology meant our AR had a more interactive quality to it and was easier to use in Unity. This meant I had an easier time learning how to use ARCore.  Unity has a lot of online tutorials, utilising these resources meant I could rapidly prototype in unity to test what could work. We changed from Unreal to Unity which was one of the best decisions we made as a group. We tried using geolocation with Mapbox and while it didn’t end up working it still taught us a lot. We used MapBox to build our static map and postponed using geolocation in this version of the app. If we were to continue building on this app I would implement geolocation.

I used Fusion 360 to build my 3D models. While I was able to create models fast and efficiently I could not export with the fusion textures. This is a fusion problem, but I should have thought about this and tried building these models in blender where I could add UV maps.

My blogging this year was always late as I never knew what to include. I spent a long time trying to write the perfect bogs and this meant I took a much longer time then I should have written them. Next year I hope to keep a constant stream of well-written blogs posted on time so I can follow what I had done. Taking progress notes and images was also something I forget to do and next year I want to try and keep better notes on my self-reflection during prototyping.

This is a short one.

During the last week, all three of us have another class due very soon (Synthetic Reality’s). Monday the 15 to be precise so it has been a very unproductive week. On Friday a finalized app was to be done by me, but I had to postpone that till next week Tuesday.

What I did do this week is finish building the two AR models, a court desk and a bar. I’ve done these on fusion as I am most comfortable in this program from previous use.

(Models by ME.)

Slider, Bumps and Blocks

Week 11: 8-12/10/18

This week, I focused on prototyping and playtesting different elements of the design. The above video is a short summary of the playtesting and prototyping I did this week.

This process was really insightful because I was able to learn and practice different methods of fabrication. It also enabled me to test out my ideas in a physical context and from that, iterate on the designs.

Here were the elements that I tested this week:

The Slider and Bump:

I’m really happy with how the slider and bump mechanism work because the slider moves really smoothly. However, the bump may have to be iterated on further so that it works more smoothly with the blocks.

Slider with Bump:

Slider base cut using bandsaw:

The Blocks

This is the element I had most difficulty with this week, and I am yet to solve it. The design of the blocks and slider mechanism is based off the CAM mechanism whereby the bump is the CAM, and the blocks are the followers. To reduce friction, my initial design used a spherical follower. While the roller follower is more extensively used as it creates the least amount of friction, I decided not to use it due to the number of rollers I’d have to buy/make (approx. 120).

(Reference: https://nptel.ac.in/courses/112103174/module4/lec3/2.html)

I decided to test out this mechanism using the second ring of blocks (2nd largest blocks) because if I can get these ones to work, I know I can get the smaller blocks to work.

Prototype 1 with cardboard sides and rounded dowel 

An alternative knife edge follower made from 16mm dowel:

Prototype 2 made by gluing together blocks of wood, and MDF follower base:

The main problem I encountered was that my blocks were experiencing a lot of lateral motion (tipping side-to-side). E.g, Prototype 3:

After doing a few different prototypes with different follower designs, I think the problem is a combination of:

Friction between follower and bump which is causing the block to be pushed sideways, as well as friction between guides and blocks causing them to get caught on the edge.

Loose guides which aren’t supporting the blocks’ upwards motion well enough. (below: testing different guide heights and structures)

Perhaps too heavy because in contrast to my cardboard prototype which works 80-90% smoothly, these blocks don’t rise and fall easily. Moreover, they may be top-heavy which may contribute to them tipping side-to-side.

Amount of Anchorage – I need to ensure that there is enough block length below the table surface so that this anchors the block as it rises above the surface.

Thus, moving forward, I need to iterate on the design so that it reduces friction, is balanced and has sufficient guide structure.

Playtest 6: Answering for Each Other

Week 8: 17/09/18

In this playtest, I got three groups of two participants to answer continuum questions in two different approaches. With the first approach, the participants answered for themselves, and with the second approach, they had to answer for each other. The purpose of this was to see if this structure would 1) prompt conversation and therefore, 2) increase the effectiveness of raising awareness of their own responses.

A third approach, where divisions were added to the continuum, was then added of the 2nd and 3rd group as a quick iteration (see test 2 and 3)

Results:

Overall, most participants (5 out of 6) expressed that having to answer the continuum for their partner made them think more about their own response more. They said this was because they had to deeply think about their answer so to communicate it to their partner. It was also everyone’s preferred approach because the conversation led to a more interesting and meaningful experience.

It was interesting to see how different groups of people completed the activity.

Answering for each other v.s. Answering with each other.

In two of the groups, the participants had similar opinions and in one case, were close friends. Thus, they ended up answering the continuum together whereby the discussion allowed them to come to a shared conclusion.

This was unexpected however, I don’t think it was necessarily an issue because I’ve seen in my past play tests that validation can still be an effective tool to make one aware of their opinions.

Regarding the structure, participants said it was good that I released the questions one at a time rather than all at once. This is because, it allowed them to stay focused on the current question and forced them to complete the activity together rather than individually, thus encouraging conversation.

Making the Mark

It was also interesting to see how participants communicated with each other about where to put the mark down on the continuum. With one group, the participants would individually make a mark based off what their partner had said in the discussion prior. Then after marking it down, they’d check with their partner to see if they agreed with where they put them. Contrastingly, in another group, the participants would gesture to the paper first before making a mark saying stuff like “so would you say you are here (points to paper)”.

Reflecting on this, any approach works as long as the participants are discussing and having a conversation. I think this form of interaction worked really well because by answering for each other, participants had to

a) express and justify their own opinion,

b) listen to someone else’s opinion and,

c) evaluate their partner’s and their own opinion within a spatial context by placing a mark on the continuum.

Continuum Structure

Participants said they preferred it when the continuum had clear sections because it helped with visualising the scale by giving reference points. This was very evident when one group jumped the gun and drew their own sections themselves. This is good to know regarding the interface of the continuum, and will be incorporated into the final design.

Overall, this play test was successful because it proved that making participants answer for each other is an effective way to become more aware of their heritage through facilitated conversation. It is simple but effective.

Role-Playing Workshop

Week 7: 27/8/18

To find out how I can make the interaction of my project relate back to the concept, I decided to playtest different performance approaches via a role-playing workshop.

The workshop involved three main activities and a debrief. You can find the full plan I created for this workshop here. The three main activities and their purposes were:

The Continuum – Object based expression

Purpose: To prompt participants to think about the concepts through expressing their opinions and views.

Body Compositions - Expression through embodiment

Purpose: To prompt participants to think how they can represent concepts in an abstract way. Also, to see what shapes and movements people use to represent the concepts.  

Storytelling – Expression through storytelling

Purpose: To prompt participants to think about their past, share it, and then see it in a different light when performed by someone else.

The workshop didn’t go quite as planned, mainly due to the difficulty getting enough people to participate. Also, some of the activities, while looked good on paper, didn’t quite work as I had hoped. However, that was expected and provides opportunities for me to learn from. Nonetheless, the workshop provided me with helpful data, good feedback and insights, such as:

“The Continuum” was the most effective activity.

This was because participants said that it was a quick way to see the differences in opinion and learn where others stood on the same topic. Also, it made conscious their sub-conscious opinions and views where there were no right or wrong answers.

I agree with them because out of the 3 activities it was the most effective way for them to think about the concepts and express themselves. I think this was partly because it is a simple act on their part and doesn’t involve them stepping out of their comfort zone too much and clamming up. Regarding performativity and interaction, this will be something I will have to consider so that audiences are able to get the most out of their interaction with my project.

Personal perceptions of heritage didn’t change, however did prompt awareness

All participants said that the workshop didn’t necessarily change their perception of their heritage. However, they all said that it made them think about their heritage which is something they do not normally do. A couple mentioned that it made them aware of how little they know about their heritage, and resulting from this workshop, want to find out more.

Though this doesn’t quite fulfil my project’s overall purpose, becoming aware of one’s relationship with their heritage is a crucial part to then realising its performativity. So, I am pretty stoked that I managed to elicit this reaction.

Learning from others

An extra and unexpected bonus was that participants expressed that through the activities in this workshop they learned more about each other. E.g. their relationship with the past, what is important to them, their opinions and views etc… I think the ability to share and learn from others, is another important element to raising self-awareness. This is because it highlights the spectrum of responses, and the differences bring to surface sub-conscious values through juxtaposition.

^Reflecting on why the Continuum worked