questions:
- What is the narrative?
- What is gained/lost from A2, A3? What is fundamental to the work?
- Is technology used appropriately?
- Articulate purpose(?) and value(?)
- Is it imaginative?
Meng and Yang’s idea is intriguing, as rather than looking
at the specific interaction of the whisker, they chose to understand the
emotions an animal would convey based on the interaction one has with the
whisker itself. If someone pulls the whisker, the animal would be in pain, and
their project is meant to narrate this feeling.
In A2 the project is light and able to be manipulated due to
the lightweight qualities that paper possesses. When they switched over to
acrylic for A3 the ability to manipulate the material was lost, and the new
face sagged down indicating on its own that it was too heavy to be held up. The
laser cutter and cutting paper both don’t allow for ambiguity of the reaction,
and I found the acrylic face to seen happy rather than in pain. Their efforts
to make the face interactive are interesting as they used strings to allow the
eyes and long to move. Over all there didn’t seem to be too much lead-way in
manipulating the face and I would advise them to use a more malleable and
flexible material, but also allow for the face to morph in other facial emotions,
as it seemed to be limited.
Self-Evaluation of My Whisker Project
In my newest version of my whisker, allows for the antenna to react once again through magnetism, but it is able to move it's fin-like arms upward with the help of human-force. V2 acts as an antenna to respond and acknowledge magnetic forces in V2's surroundings. The value changed from V1 to V2 is that the object is scaled up and the magnetic attraction is continued, but the whisker still lacks a greater overall interaction for users. There is also a lack of determination as to the definition of the whiskers goals overall and how it wants to react.
In the future I would advise myself to add mechanical and electrical elements that allow the whisker to come alive. I also acknowledge that the directive of the whisker needs to be narrated better in order for a user to understand how they can interact with the whisker. The whisker is imaginative as it has extension which can jump to hold a predator, but the success of the component fails due to the lack of mechanics, and sensors.
In my newest version of my whisker, allows for the antenna to react once again through magnetism, but it is able to move it's fin-like arms upward with the help of human-force. V2 acts as an antenna to respond and acknowledge magnetic forces in V2's surroundings. The value changed from V1 to V2 is that the object is scaled up and the magnetic attraction is continued, but the whisker still lacks a greater overall interaction for users. There is also a lack of determination as to the definition of the whiskers goals overall and how it wants to react.
In the future I would advise myself to add mechanical and electrical elements that allow the whisker to come alive. I also acknowledge that the directive of the whisker needs to be narrated better in order for a user to understand how they can interact with the whisker. The whisker is imaginative as it has extension which can jump to hold a predator, but the success of the component fails due to the lack of mechanics, and sensors.
No comments:
Post a Comment