Outcome

  Intention: 

Our goal of this final project is to design an IoT device that aims to facilitate long distance communication. The precedent that we are working with is the shaker IoT device proposed by Rob Strong and Bill Gaver. The design is a pair of simple devices with two components for each pair. One is a sender that induces signals to the other pair of devices when shaken. The other is a receiver that vibrates when triggered by the other pair of devices. The goal is to support relationships by allowing communication that are both implicit and expressive. Our aim for this project is to remake the shaker prototype, redesign the prototype to allow portability, and renovate the packaging for a more playful and expressive design.  

Historical Case : The Shaker is derived from the paper, 'Feather, Scent, and Shaker: Supporting Simple Intimacy' by Rob Strong and Bill Gaver. This design facilitates a form of interaction that is both subtle and emotional, relying on haptic feedback to convey feelings such as affection, excitement, or calmness. The Shaker prototype is a strong example of affective communication and embodied interaction, concepts that highlight non-verbal, emotional exchange. 

Shaker emphasizes affective communication, which focuses on conveying emotions through non-verbal means. Unlike traditional communication tools that use language or symbols, Shaker employs physical vibrations to express moods. This aligns with Norman’s emotional design framework, which suggests that devices should provide an experience that resonates emotionally with users at the behavioral level. The tactile feedback from Shaker allows users to feel connected to one another without the need for explicit verbal exchange, embodying emotional expression through simple gestures.

Shaker also leverages embodied interaction, a concept highlighted by Dourish, where interaction is rooted in physical engagement. Shaker invites users to communicate through gestures, providing a tactile experience that mimics the physicality of face-to-face interaction. This embodied communication creates a sense of closeness and presence, even when users are physically distant.

 

Remake:

The first step in our project is to remake our precedent, the shaker device designed by Rob Strong and Bill Gaver. The device has a rudimentary design. Each set of devices consists of two components. One is an input sensor that detects shaking motions and sends the signal to other devices. The other component is a solenoid that vibrates when it receives signals from the other pair of devices. The picture below is the workflow diagram of the device:

Since the original paper only contains a picture of the finished design rather than a blueprint that we can follow, we considered the functionality of the components and chose the instruments that will best replicate the functions of the device. For the shaker, we use a ball tilt sensor. It acts as a switch that breaks whenever the metal ball is tilted. For the vibration device, we use a simple 5V solenoid. For our code the input sensor will detect shaking movements and publish an event to the cloud. The other pair of devices will subscribe to the event and trigger the solenoid whenever the event is published. Once we decided on the materials and assembled a working code, we connected the parts in a circuit and started testing its functionality.

Bill of materials:

• 2x Proton 2 dev board
• 2x 5V Solenoid
• 2x Breadboard
• Jumper wires
• 2x NPN transistors
• 4x 10 ohm resistors
• 2x diodes
• 2x Ball tilt vibration sensor
• 2x External power cables

Circuit:

Code:

Video:

Reflection:

Remaking the precedent gives us valuable insight on how the device functions and details that we need to look out for when designing a working device. The remaking exercise also helps us realize some potential weaknesses of the original design and our remake. For example, since the ball tilt sensor works like a switch, the input signals only have two states, on and off. Our code needs to work with these two states and define what kind of motion is considered as shaking. The remake model also gives us ideas about different potential outputs that we can utilize for different types of expressive communication.

Reinterpretation:

Building upon our remake model, we try to reinterpret the original shaker design to explore potential new interactions and uses. We thought about how we can modify the current design to improve or repurpose the existing model. Some considerations we had are: Use a different sensor to detect different stimuli and explore other kinds of interactions, changing the output of the device for different modes of communication, incorporating visual/audio elements, etc. We eventually landed on three key design considerations. First, we want to keep the shaking and vibration as our input and output. We think using vibration as a signal keeps the subtlety of our device. Second, we want to combine the two parts of the original shaker device into one object that has the functionality of both the sensor and the solenoid. Third, we want to minimize the size of the device so that it is portable and presentable.

The final design of our reinterpretation is a shaker toy that can send signals over long distances to the other device via shaking. The toy device incorporates the functions of both the vibration sensor and the solenoid, allowing it to send and receive signals as a single object. The toy is relatively small. It can fit inside people’s pockets or be carried around as a keychain. When the device is shaken, it will send a signal to the cloud and communicate with the other device that it is paired with. Once the signal reaches the device, it will start vibrating, notifying the user. The workflow diagram is largely the same. The updated bill of materials is as follows:

• 2x Proton 2 dev board
• 2x small stuffed animals or toys (3”)
• 2x 5V Solenoid
• 2x Breadboard
• Jumper wires
• 2x NPN transistors
• 4x 10 ohm resistors
• 2x diodes
• 2x Ball tilt vibration sensor
• 2x External power cables

Circuit:

Code:

Video:

WORKING WITH AI COPILOTS:

1. Identifying Sensors for the Shaker Device

Prompt:
"I need to identify suitable sensors for detecting tilt and providing tactile feedback in a 'Shaker' device. Can you suggest options for sensors and how they can integrate with a Particle Photon?"

Interaction:
The AI suggested using a ball tilt sensor to detect tilt, which could be easily interfaced with a Particle Photon. For tactile feedback, it recommended using a solenoid to provide physical response when the tilt is detected. It also suggested incorporating a proximity sensor for additional interaction capabilities.

Outcome:
The AI helped identify components that suited the device’s requirements, and I was able to source a ball tilt sensor and solenoid for the prototype.

Value:

• Sensor Recommendations: The AI helped narrow down the most suitable sensors, streamlining the component selection process.
• Integration Tips: The AI provided simple integration ideas, ensuring smooth connectivity between sensors and the Particle Photon.

Challenge:
Understanding how to calibrate the sensors for precise feedback (e.g., ensuring the solenoid response was appropriate for the tilt) required further exploration.

2. Circuit Design for Tilt Sensor

Prompt:
"How do I wire a ball tilt sensor to a Particle Photon and control a solenoid to provide tactile feedback when the sensor detects tilt?"

Interaction:
The AI recommended connecting the ball tilt sensor to the Photon with a 10kΩ pull-down resistor and controlling the solenoid with an NPN transistor, with a flyback diode to protect against voltage spikes.

Outcome:
The circuit worked seamlessly, and I was able to control the solenoid based on sensor input.

Value:

• Clear Circuit Logic: AI’s step-by-step guidance was easy to follow and implemented quickly.
• Practical Protection: The flyback diode suggestion was essential for preventing solenoid damage.

Challenge:
Fine-tuning sensor sensitivity for precise feedback required manual adjustments.

What Worked Well:

• Efficient Component Selection: AI quickly identified suitable sensors and components.
• Fast Prototyping Support: Circuit suggestions allowed for rapid testing.

What Was Challenging:

• Achieving precise sensor calibration and feedback required additional manual work.

Restoring and reviving the Shaker device changed my understanding of its value. Initially, I saw it as a simple tool for tactile communication, but working on the project showed me how complex and nuanced interactive technologies can be, especially when combining classic ideas with modern components.

What Worked:

• The solenoid performed well for tactile feedback, offering responsive and adjustable vibrations when triggered.

What Didn’t Work:

• The ball tilt sensor posed challenges in calibration and responsiveness, requiring multiple iterations to match the intended interaction.

• Fine-tuning the sensor’s sensitivity for precise, proportional feedback was more difficult than expected.

Lessons Learned:

• User testing and careful sensor calibration are essential for achieving the desired tactile experience.

• The challenge of integrating subtle feedback into an interactive device highlighted the importance of iterative development.

What I Would Do Differently:

• Focus more on ergonomics and usability from the start to ensure comfort.

• Calibrate the ball tilt sensor earlier to refine responsiveness.

Value of Revisiting Older Works:

Looking back at the Shaker helped me blend historical concepts with modern technology, inspiring fresh design directions. Revisiting older works reveals overlooked solutions, providing new insights for today’s needs, especially in creating meaningful tactile interactions.