Roadmap

To take this project forward over a 12 week period, there are several areas that we would focus our time on. From a mechanical and physical point of view, we would create a prototype that is generally more robust. From a hardware perspective, we would switch the pieces in order to be more reliable pieces, so that we would be able to have a more reliable bluetooth connection between all of the elements. As mentioned earlier, we planned on using HC-SR05 Bluetooth modules for simple, user-friendly communication, but we had no means of acquiring them in a reasonable amount of time. Because of this, we attempted to use the built-in BLE capabilities of the Arduino Nano 33 BLE Sense, but these devices are relatively new and unreliable for consistent Bluetooth communication between multiple devices. They also lack documentation because of how new they are, so it was very frustrating to work with them. For this reason, we decided to switch to serial communication which forced us to place all of our electronics in close proximity. And from the software end, we felt that we just needed a bit more time as we had to make some last minute adjustments.

In regards to the interactions itself, we had discussions about the puzzle box opening or performing an action once it is solved. Taking this project forward, we would implement an extra mechanism, whether it is a part of the box or another isolated artifact, that opens or moves once the puzzle is solved. Another interaction that we had discussed for a while but ultimately fell out of favor was using hand signs, or even body positions to control the rings on the box. We had begun some shallow explorations of these interactions, but ultimately ran out of time to fully incorporate them. Incorporating these interactions would make the experience much more immersive, and provide a contrasting interaction from the smaller artifacts scattered around the room.

In regards to resolving the software issues that we had, having extra time would be sufficient for us to solve those issues, as we did not feel that they were massive impediments. In regards to the puzzle box, having a bit more time to consider all of the pieces and mechanics would be ideal. For example, we did not consider how we might attach an aluminum bearing, and we needed to retrofit it to work. By slightly redesigning the box, we would be able to build a much more robust prototype.

Aesthetically, we received a number of comments regarding the affordances that our objects provided. If we were to take this forward, we would spend more time experimenting with which kinds of symbols and forms would be most suggestive of the types of interactions that we were hoping to create.

With more time, we would implement user testing at several stages of the project, to better understand where our shortcomings and successes are.

Critical Reflection

Our final installation was a bit more staged than we would have liked. We feel that the overall aesthetics and visual presentation was successful, even without the full functionality of the project. On the other hand, something that could have been refined was the staging of the overall project. We could have spent more time thinking about how we could have covered and hidden the wires of our project to work more towards the experience we were envisioning. Due to the technical difficulties that resulted in us hard wiring the electronics as opposed to using bluetooth, our various props were concentrated on one table. Because our initial proposition was to demonstrate the unseen, intangible interconnectedness of technology, being more deliberate in spacing and staging would have further reinforced that "spooky" connectivity even with the wiring. Furthermore, when presenting some comments we received had to do the user experience and specific narrative of our box - why is the box in the attic? Why did we choose the attic specifically? Why would someone be interacting with this box in the first place? We had focused our project energies on the development of the electronics and how interfacing them with each other, as well as how that communicated our overall concept, that we did not address more clearly how the user actually interfaced with the project.