Week 5.

Each group showcased and demonstrated their concepts for the first piece of assessment in an exhibition context. We presented a movie of the product in context, a powerpoint explaining the technical, input and a output, free powerade to help people feel apart of the context and user group and a arduino demonstration.

When it came to showing the video and answering questions we believe it was easily done as most information was in the video. We had lots of positive feedback regarding the actual product and its potential success. Runners in the class said it would be an ideal training partner which is exactly what we were looking for. Everyone understood the input and the effectiveness of the output. 

It was also really interesting to see the other design solutions throughout the exhibition. The style of marking for this assessment felt reliving in the room, everyone appeared comfortable with there submissions and they were all very impressive. 

Week 4.

Intro

The continuation of the two-week project left us with many questions about programming the arduino. We collaborated with the tutors to help us understand the code that would allow our device to run smoothly. We developed the final concept to be a device that helps marathon runners train individually, in a group and with anyone around the world. The context would be marathon situations and the device would be worn on the runners wrist. We chose to put the device on the runners wrist because the runners arm movements match the runners leg movements, so the faster the legs move the faster the arms move. The input has different levels of acceleration and the output is a sound and light feedback to tell the runner to speed up or slow down.

Workshop

The group decided not to divided the project into four tasks, instead we all worked on all parts together. This method worked well for our group as we all had similar ideas an could work individually with in the group. Each member had a more developed skill than the other and we used this to our greatest advantage. 

We aim to use an accelerometer to measure movement on the X axis. When the accelerometer is still the X axis reads around 510. When the accelerometer is moved slowly it reads up to 530. From 510 to 599 the device will make no sound or flash a light. When the accelerometer reads 600 or over the RGB shines red and the speaker makes a sudden low note and the light stays red for 5 seconds even if the accelerometer reads under or over 600. 

When the accelerometer reads 700 or over the RGB changes to Blue and makes a middle note tone and the light stays on for 5 seconds even if the accelerometer reads under or over 700. When the accelerometer reads 800 or over the RGB changes to green and the speaker makes a high pitch tone and the light stays on for 5 seconds even if the accelerometer reads under or over 800.

Once we collaborated with the tutor we were then able to experiment with the arduino codes to make them more representative of our final design. We developed the outputs into three stages. Slow, just right and too fast. The first stage has a red light and a low tone. The second stage is a green light and a medium tone and the third stage is red light and a low tone. 

We still had trouble getting the middle stage with the arduino as the readings were very close together. For demonstration purposes we also added a switch witch turned the sound on and off so it would not annoy the runner.We conducted further experiments and got the lights to change to the right colours and the sound to match the colours. With further experimentation it would be possible to get the arduino to react exactly to our desired design solution.

Week 3.

Intro

The focus for this week is design for human behaviour as an input. The group looked further into the principles of interaction designs. We researched arduino projects on youtube that were in our line of interest. This helped with the initial ideation process for our first project. We thought about the things we had seen and what aspects we liked and disliked.

As a group and as individuals we noticed a change in our approach to designing with technology in mind. We no longer think that we need to try cramming as many technological features into a device as possible. products need to remain simple within the capabilities of the user group. The device may have a million features but the user may only use one because it is simple and familiar. We want to make the user feel like what is going on inside a product is not magic but a simple well thought out setup.

Model Workshop   

The team brainstormed and completing arduino tasks to promote further ideation of our final design outcome. Through brainstorming we came up of more design concepts such as an interactive game that used infrared signaling with two people playing, a skateboard that lights up in the direction the board is turning, a guitar that lights up in a visual display according to the music being played, a luggage protecting device, a children's interactive toy and a visual display on the back of a runner that allowed a crowd to see how hard they were running. We then tried visualising what components to use for each product and then tried testing them out. We found varying degrees of success with each product as we didn't have codes to make each device work.

The group collaborated with the tutors to work on new ideas and rectify design faults in the existing designs. We tried to develop new designs based on testing out different inputs and outputs such as temperature sensors, motors, accelerometers and pressure sensors.

Development

The group developed a concept further during the week. We decided to further the concept of the visual display on an athletes back. We decided to explore the option of a motion detector and an accelerometer. The accelerometer proved to be more appropriate for reading the input of running motion better than a motion sensor. We also wanted to change the device to something more portable and something that could be used as a personal device as well as a device that gave feedback to others.

Week 2.

Intro

For week two each person in the group brought in numerous electronic devices to take apart and discover there inner workings. We brought in a remote, dvd player, cd player, rotating alarm clock and a camera. We learned most from the dvd player and cd player as they used physically moving parts that were influenced by electronics. The interaction between physical parts in these electronics were greater then the physical parts in the other electronics. 

We harvested many parts from the electronics that we believed would give us inspiration and help us discover more ways of applying the arduino to a context with a user behaviour. We then tried making the harvested parts work on there own and then we tried applying them to the arduino. We discovered that a lot of speakers, lights and motors were working on there own and with the arduino. We also completed many task from black board and used these codes and the arduino to see if our harvested parts worked.

Workshop

Everything we took apart had a similar input but various outputs. We decided that if we wanted to explore more inputs we would need to take apart things such as solar lights that have a light sensor or products that had motion or pressure sensors. We found it very difficult to try to get parts working that were not conventionally used with certain arduino codes. 

We were able to make small changes to the arduino code such as timing sound tones and turning lights on and off. We also discovered an extra part of the arduino software that allowed us to read a script of exactly what input the ardunio was receiving. The group decided from this workshop that we should all research more about the programing side of the task is it seems this will be the most difficult aspect.

Week 1.

Intro

Our team is Group 08 and consists of Iain Sams, Jordan East, Rafe Delaney and myself. We have worked together before so we do not yet know each others strengths in design. Currently we haven't assigned any roles but this can be done after experimentation with tasks and workshops.

Team members

Iain Sams: http://design-interaktion.blogspot.com.au/

Jordan East: http://jordaneastdesign.blogspot.com.au/

Monique Sutherland: http://moniquesutherland.blogspot.com.au/

Rafe Delaney: http://www.rafedelaneydesign.blogspot.com.au/

Readings

The Inmates Are Running 

This was an interesting text to read and I gained a few key principles from the reading. Products need to be designed for all people and not for a specific persona or user group. Current and future Industrial Design depends upon the needs of the user being taken into account within every aspect of the design process.

Workshop

In this weeks workshop the group explored input and output behaviour and scenarios. We started brainstorming action and words that represent input, and words that represent output.
We were told that the ideas could be blue sky, yet all the ideas we came up with were unrealistic to represent as a model. So we thought about what problems we faced in everyday life as well as others and we came up with many more ideas. Some ideas we came up with were glasses that give visual feedback to light, an elderly device worn around he neck to detect when a person has fallen over, a baby monitor that detects when a baby is crawling out of the crib and gives feedback to  a guardian and a device that detects when milk is getting low in the fridge and signals you to buy more.

We decided to make models of the last two devices. The baby monitor would use a motion sensor set at a certain level in the crib and when the baby climbs out of the crib it activates the motion sensor and tells the guardian through light and sound. The milk device would use a pressure sensor underneath the milk bottle and would be pre programmed to recognise different pressures to show different levels in the milk bottle. When the milk gets low the pressure sensor would activate and give feedback to the user with light and sound or via a mobile app.