week8

buying lots of different materials

finding out the right size of the boxes

cutting the boxes

putting materials on them

creating research questions

making a survey

evaluating the survey

researching different sounds

making a sound evaluation

tinkering with movement
evaluating the results

iterating the most striking features

create objects with personalities

We tried to find the right size for our boxes, we would use the materials with
--> we decided for the 75 mm box

This size is very nice to hold in two hands.

We had a lot of trouble figuring out the settings for the kerf in the MakerCase. We started altering the line width first, because of: logic. But this was not the correct place to look for the kerf settings.

After we found the kerf settings and tested a little bit, we managed to find the best settings for out purposes:

we have 4 mm MDF, 75 mm box size.
--> Kerf 1.5 makes the box fix very tighly, so it doesn't fall apart, even when force is used.

After the very long testing and finding out of the settings all there was left is cutting lots of boxes.

Assembeling the box parts (with a lot of force and a hurting hand afterwards) took me half a day.
Afterwards I made a plan on what I find interesting to putting to test the following days.

Not sure anymore if the kerf setting of 0.15 was the best, so I tried out 0.2 and 0.15 again to realize, 0.15 was the best one. If we would use this Kerf setting with the 4mm MDF, it would snuck together and would be holding so tighly that one could not open the box again. So this is kind of the unbreakable box we need.

1. Look at this object for 5 seconds and try to relate to it in some way. Let it have an impression on you.

2. If you needed to describe this object as a relationship. What kind of relationship would it be? Use examples from your life.

3. We know it's a strange question: How does this object make you feel? Spontaneously. Do you have any emotions toward it? Which? Please be as specific as possible (not "I like it", rather "I want to touch it" or "I feel attracted to it")

4. If 3. this is too difficult for you: Use 3 emotions to describe this object.

5. What would you like to do with the object?

6. Anything else? Let us know.

boxes for the test with materials + open ones for the sound testing

we tried many different settings on line thickness before getting to the right parameter: kerf

the perfect settings for a very tight fit: 0.15 kerf

we bought several fabrics and materials from textile shops on the first day to get started

3 MDF plates and an acrylic plate for box-cutting

furry, soft, slick, rough, seethrough, unique touch was what we were looking for when coosing the textiles

At that point I and also Kat was a bit discuraged. We started very fast in the beginning and were slowed down by such an easy thing as box cutting from a template...

giving the boxes personalities through texture

After having the basic boxes, the next step was to give them texture and a appeal. We explored the materials we bought together, also Kat bought a bunch of additional new things at Action and tried to get to a certain variety in the materials chosen to get different results when making the survey with them. We intended to make 6 boxes, but in the end we ended up with 7 pieces we wanted to test.

When making the boxes, I already had an assumption how any box would be perceived. I hoped the appeal would not determine the outcome and we would still get some surprises on the way.

the green box had a very nice material on it, it gives in when pressing it, the color is not very appealing. I was especially curious on the results on this one

After making the objects, we decided on questions for the survey part. We made a little sheet and asked people to fill it out.

I felt a little bit bad to hold up our fellow students for so long. I think we had the whole class (present) busy with our survey for about half an hour. Also people needed to continue working on their projects. So this was the pattern.

--> test every box at least 3 times

--> if we get a indecisive result on a box // not so interesting result on the box after the 2nd time we didn't test it a 3rd time

--> the most interesting boxes according to the survey shall be iterated in the next step

filled out forms for evaluation

no. 1 for further iteration

no. 2 for further iteration

no. 3 for further iteration

the grey box made quite the neutral impression, probably the color and the kind of fabric made the associations "furniture" and "neutral" core results. We made the grey cube with stripes from the fabric and evaluated this creates the cosyness of it after all. Due to the embivalence of the results we chose to not iterate this approach further.

This one was interesting...because of the straws which went in all directions it seems the object had a hostile appeal to the testers.
I found that interesting because at the same time the object made people curious and it was perceived friendly. Due to the embivalence of the results we chose to not iterate this approach further.

The orange object hat lots of positive emotions triggered. I assume this is mainly because of the material itself, which everybody knows from a toy from their childhood. So emotions towards this object are mainly because of memories and not because of the object itself. Due to the obvious results we chose to not iterate this approach further.

The shiny box was one of the more interesting results. Though it was very fix and easy to make it had a mystifying effect on the testers. It stumbled them, and made them have respect for it. Being curious at the same time. Also it was the only object which could not been given a gender by all testers. We decided to iterate that object trying to bring out even more of this effect.

Though he results for the green object were indecive too, we decided this is too interesting to let go. The results were super extreme, one person hated it another one found it "pleasing". We are yet to decide on which character trait we are focussing when iterating and will see what comes out of further exploration of the material. For next step I would also like to combine it with another material.

The pink, furry object had a very positive vibe on the testers. It was perceived pet-like and created a desire to touch it. This traits we are going to explore in the next step. On this one there will probably be movements involved in the end.

In the next step we made a short sound exploration with materials and also with a conductive touchboard and several abstract sounds. We made this part through a self-test due to a lack of additional time for a second survey.

Kat built a box which could hold the touchboard, a small powerbank and headphones or a speaker.

We cut a hole in the box and put the speakers there. Then we would test several sounds, connected through copper tape to the conductive touchboard.

1. sound: BREATHING
2. sound: CREATURE MUMBLING
3. sound: RADAR
4. sound: VOICE SPEAKING A FANTASY LANGUAGE

We listened to the sounds through the hole in the soundbox and discussed which sound would fit to which box from the first run with the textured boxes.

evaluation & results

testing different sounds in the boxes, trying out materials from the lab, like screws and pins --> unfortunately the interference of the materials and the box itself made the sounds quite similar to each other so we moved on to digital sounds after.

Kat made a acrylc cube, so we could also explore the sound of water in one of the boxes. The effect was very nice, people who tried it were amazed and didn't know what they were hearing and wondering how we did it. We glued the acrylic cube with water in in in a wooden cube.

wooden pearls seemed to be nice to test, but the effect was kind of unpleasing. Wood on wood was a strange sound, neither very unique nor interesting.

iteration 1: shiny box

We decided to make the final objects double the size of the testobject ones. The first box we were working on was the shiny box iteration.

Based on the feedback we got these were the most striking features we decided to enforce in the iteration:

The collaboration up to this point is very good, but we have had some trouble in coming together each day. Due to this the project isn't going as smoothly as the collecting & mapping project we worked on before. Probably also because it is simply a much longer period of time we have to organise. This is kind of difficult considering we are working on a collaborative project and collaboration is the essence of this.

I missed two and a half days of the first week because I needed to go to my University in Berlin to present a former project of mine and also Kat needs to work on a regular basis and on a flexible schedule next to her studies which is difficult for working together every day.

So...these aspects lend to a lack of some collaborative days for the self directed projects which is sad but not compensateable during weekends because we are stuck to the lab for our process.

How we managed this: When we were not together in Uni we kept each other updated. In that way it was still collaborative and we were up to speed at all times. In retrospective the circumstances were completely manageable also because when we came together we could just start off with the next Making phase - we were on the same page and level of information after all at all times :)

additional thoughts on the collaboration

iteration 2:
furry pink box

...to our testers:

Moritz, Audrey, Asle, Suit Rick, Duy

GENERAL NOTES

We wanted to explore the four mentioned properties on the left in a deeper way. So we concentrated on making something mystic which would create a wondering effect. We wanted to trigger a distant but still positive relationship between the observer and the object.

OUTSIDE

We wanted to have the outside covered in one color, but unfortuately we did not have enough material left to cover it in obe color. Looking inside of it there should be a surprise so we cut a mirror with a glass cutter to fit it in the box and used the shiny paper for the insides.
--> cut it a bit, then applying pressure until it breaks
We decided to make a peephole which should show the observer him or herself.

INSIDE

I wanted to let some light inside, but it should also be possible to still pick it up and shake it for experiencing the sound. We wanted to have a natural but unusual sound with it. From our sound research we had a water sound created which would fit in this object perfectly. So we made another constuction which could hold water in there to shake it and make the sound we encountered during the sound exploration. Unfortunately we didn't manage to create the sound we desired because of the mirror shard isolating the hidden side.

GENERAL NOTES

In the second iteration we concentrated on making something loveable and sensoricly appealing. We tried to trigger only positive emotions almost like the emotions you can have towards a pet or pet-toy. To give it live we wanted to make it appear breathing aswell.

OUTSIDE

We wanted to have the outside all fluffy, soft and nice. We wanted to do something which offers you to touch it and also make you want to touch it. We decided to use the same furry fabric as before, because it came very close to the directive in the first run already. Now the task of how to make it even more appealing.

INSIDE

Due to us wanting to make it breathe, we would need to use a arduino. Kat set the motor and the Arduino up and we both worked on a working construction together which would be hidden under and inside the box. We build a selfmade construction which worked after several tries.

Adjusted watercontainer, the acrilix solution was not stable and leaked. So we used plastic cups and clued them. For the acrylic to stay closed we would need to have used a special acrylic glue, which was not available for us.

applying the shiny material to the inside and outside of the box

View on the box, when looking trough the peephole.

Based on the feedback we got these were the most striking features we decided to enforce in the iteration:

Rotation motor for simulation of breathing

simulation of breathing

It was possibile to alter the speed and interval of the rotation motor. We looked for a steady, not to fast setting until we got a result that was pleasing for us.

we needed to use a lot of glue to attach the spaceholders to a stick that it doesn't loosen because of the resistance of the fur

Additional foam was neccessary for creating more space between the rotator construction and the box. The construction was not strong enouhg to lift the whole fur by itself

We cut a whole in the box, so the arduino could be hidden inside the box and still be connected to electricity

The final result worked nicely

iteration 3:
green box

Based on the feedback we got these were the most striking features we decided to enforce in the iteration:

This one was tricky and a lot of work. We also used plant foam as the main product. It took us very long to glue the foam on the box because it is so fragile. The product was the same as the one we used in the first run because of its unique texture. Because we simultaiously worked on the cube there were no pictures taken during the glueing.

Because we used hotglue it also caused several burns during the application. We decided to do some more than just the foam and added a grey textile to the cube. We tried to make it as disgusting as possible. (pictures see below)

There was a lot of loose product left over. We decided to put it on the box because it had a nice effect concerning the fragility and it almost looked like a living surface.

I enjoyed working with Kat and I am especially thankful for the contributions of the other students I mentioned above. The survey gave some very interesting insights in the perception of the people and gave a great directive for the iteration of the boxes. I enjoyed being surprised by some of the statements and we liked the feedback so much, that we decided to write little introductions/bios on each box. (see below)

I would like to work with Kat again also after the second project we are collaborating on. I think we go well together in terms of thinking and set of skills which are complementing each other.

closing thoughts on collaboration

Collaboration on the iteration of the furry box was especially nice. Kat set up the Arduino and got the motor working but by the end of the day the rotation always broke the construction so the breathing worked one time, max two and then the construction would be loose from the motor. On the next day, she needed to work so I continued on that basis and finished the construction (see above) by tweaking the size of the placeholder and the attachment to the motor. I also added placeholder and soft fabric for more easy movement of the fur fabric.

Kats previous experience with electronics came very handy here and later aswell. She set up the Touchboard very quickly and I researched some sounds to test - very nice and smooth workflow :)

We displayed artefacts from the whole project work. We decided to split them in the parts we were experiencing during the project.

1. --> texture testing
2. --> soundtesting
3. --> electronics
4. --> iteration 1,2,3

The final objects were displayed in the last step. This is how they looked. As one of the last steps we added sound to the boxes which could be triggered by touching the conductive copper tape on the paper.

loose material on the top of the base layer

texture exhibition part with little bios based on the survey of each box

different analog and digital sounds we tested

these were the conductive copper tape pieces

After creating the object we were super curious in how the people would perceive the objects. Would it be different than before? More extreme? Did we manage to pull out the essence of the first run on each object?

We decided to make a plotparty in the end and see if there would still be ambivalence or if the outcome would be uniform.

the outcome was most clear with the furry object: Everybody loved it and it created the desire to touch.

Interesting was the shiny object. It is indistinctive of some sort, which is probably in the nature when wanting to make something unisex and mystic. Everybody put the box on the positive "Love it" side still, much more were stick close to the neutral Y-axis though.

The green object landed mainly in the hate-zone. Also here are two exeptions in the love-and-touch zone. Funny enough this material seems to create very polarizing reactions. :)

It was a very nice experiment, I enjoyed using so many different materials in one project and especially to just explore and go wild with them.

how Kat and I came to collaborating

--> collaborative project with Katharina van Eck

By accident in a coffee break :) Kat told me she had a fascination for "empathy for objects" which was VERY similar to my fascination "objects with personalities". That coincidence was super nice as we already worked together before and found that it worked out quite well.

We made a quick brainstorming to find out if we could be on one page on this or if we had different ideas. I really liked Kats initial approach: to create several versions of a Lamp and iterate to work out a very empathic realtionship to the object. This was our starting point. Somehow it drifted into a more basic reasearch approach after that and this is what we made of it...: