DUO CORPORA UNA ANIMA

M1.2

DUO CORPORA UNA ANIMA “a reseach project discussing the value of perceptual crossing when implemented in everyday objects” student: attalan mailvaganam coach: rené ahn

1

Duo Corpora Una Anima: a reseach project discussing the value of perceptual crossing when implemented in everyday objects Published on 15/01/2013 DPL54 (Es)Sence Project Proposer: Pierre Levy, Rene Ahn, Simone de Waart Project Expert: Eva Deckers Published by: Attalan Mailvaganam m1.2 s081101 Coach: René Ahn Copyright © 2012-2013

2

i table of content introduction ........................................................ 04 perceptual crossing

........................................................ 05

pressure cooker

........................................................ 07

value of perceptual crossing

........................................................ 10

head question

........................................................ 16

exploration ........................................................ 19 dcua ........................................................ 24 experiment ........................................................ 32 results ........................................................ 39 discussions

.

........................................................ 49

acknowledgements

........................................................ 53

references ........................................................ 55 appendix ........................................................ 58

3

ii introduction “For this research I will build upon on the research of perceptual crossing, by developing an artifact with perceptive qualities to research the value of perceptual crossing in everyday design�

The (Es)Sence project is focused on designing perceptive behavior in artifacts in order to create a reciprocal interplay between the artifact and its user based on the theory of perceptual crossing [1]. For this research I will build upon on the research of perceptual crossing, by developing an artifact with perceptive qualities to research the value of perceptual crossing in everyday design.

I will briefly go through the theory of perceptual crossing before moving on to the step in where I will discuss about its value related to design, before I present my main research question and its hypothesis. The final developed artifact will be based on this hyposthesis.

With the artifact I will perform an experiment based on the lab approach [3], in where I will be able to test the hypothesis. Finally I will analyze the experiment by using an affinity diagram and a visual mapping, which I will discuss before I formulate a better developed hypothesis.

4

01

PERCEPTUAL CROSSING “what is perceptual crossing?”

5

01

figure 1: reciprocal interplay between subject & artifact [1]

The theory of perceptual crossing [1] is inspired and based on the phenomenology of perception developed by Merleau-Ponty, as he cites: “perception is inherently interactive and participatory: it is a reciprocal interplay between the perceiver and the perceived� [5] So I can perceive the other person perceiving me and that person perceives me perceiving him. Lenay et al. [4] argue that this interplay is essential to get a feeling of involvement. The theory of perceptual crossing as discussed by Deckers et. al [1] is not focused on a person to person interplay, but on person to artifact interplay.

Therefore the goal for this project is to design artifacts with perceptive qualities capable of engaging a reciprocal interplay with its perceiver, creating a better feeling of involvement with the interactive artifact. On figure 1 the reciprocal interplay between subject & artifact is illustrated.

6

02

PRESSURE COOKER “understanding the relation of perceptual crossing in design during an one week pressure cooker”

7

02

I believe that the potential of a design theory such as perceptual crossing can only be fully understood when explored. Purely based on the theoretical explanation of perceptual crossing, I find it too abstract to fully understand it’s capacity related to design. So in this case it’s important that the theory is explored to understand it’s full capacity, so thinking by making!

Therefore the first week was used to set-up a pressure cooker with a fellow student, Adriaan De Regt. Together we tried to develop an artifact based on the theory of perceptual crossing by mainly thinking with our hands and afterwards using the design notions [1, page 7] to develop a code, which enabled the artifact to perceive us and us perceiving it!

The developed artifact (Figure 2 Pressure Cooker) could sense sound by using its left and right placed sound sensors, it was even able to distinguish the left sound from the right and otherwise. It reacted by moving to the side with a irregular high peak of sound. During its search to the “high peak”, the exploration phase, it would make a searching sound based on different tones, when a high peak was noticed, it would change its sound to higher and quick tones on the side where this “high peak” was noticed.

Overall the artifact functioned well, I felt that the artifact was really able to perceive us rather than just only react on us: “it almost felt like a blind creature, which was afraid and scared its prey away by making an annoying sound” This particular metaphor related me to the term Anthropomorphism: “Anthropomorphism (from the Greek word anthroposfor man, and morphe, form/structure), as used in this paper, is the tendency to attribute human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals and others with a view to helping us rationalise their actions” [2] In my case the artifact can be seen as an inanimate objects which is attributed with certain human characteristics, such as hearing, speaking (screaming) and moving.

But what is the use of translating such cognitive and emotional human characteristic to inanimate artifacts and especially in design? Can this artifact have a different functional use than just as an artificial intelligent pet? At this moment I see our current artifact more as this AI pet and not as an useful design product, bringing up the next question: why do we need perceptual crossing in design?

8

02

figure 2: pressure cooker, 1. sound sensors, 2. servo, 3. 8 -bit speaker

3 1 1

2

9

03

VALUE OF PERCEPTUAL CROSSING “why do we need to implement the theory of perceptual crossing in design?”

10

03

“design is an action aimed at changing the existing situation into a preferred one” [10]

I have the feeling that artifacts with a perceptual behavior will not be used for their functionality, but more for the art, fun or joy of using it. If this artifact would have had a functionality, than this would probably decay; or in other words: after time its functionality will not be important anymore. In the end it will be about the quality of the interaction or conversation between subject and artifact, reciprocal interplay between subject and artifact [5], and not about the quality of the output or outcome of this particular conversation, which is actually the reason why humans even started designing in the first place: According to Herbert Simon, design is an “action aimed at changing the existing situation into a preferred one” [10]. In other words: “Thus, designers were considered as innovators or reformers who helped in producing social improvements. Probably, the wishes or desires of designers to change the world led them to be a designer in the first place and presented them with newer challenges.” [6] So my question is, how could perceptual crossing enrich everyday designs by producing social improvement; in other words, what is its added value to this world? In this particular question I am focusing on the concept of everyday designs, as what I believe are the “twenty thousand everyday things” [7, page 11] that we use daily, reflected on the beautiful anecdote given by Ronald A Norman in his book, the Design of Everyday Things: There are an amazing number of everyday things, perhaps twenty thousand of them.

Are there really that many? Start by looking about you. There are light fixtures, bulbs, and sockets; wall plates and screws; clock, watches, and watchbands. There are writing devices (I count twelve in front of me, each different in function, color, or style). There are clothes, with different functions, openings, and flaps (...) Each is simple, but each requires its own method of operation, each has to be learned, each does its own specialized task, and each has to be designed separately [7, page 11]

11

03

In order to the answer the question of how perceptual everyday objects could produce social improvement, it would be useful to research if it would be possible to transfer a perceptual behavior to a everyday object, such as: e.g. a pen to write with, a doorknob which is used to open a door and a drawer which is used to store other “everyday thing” in. These describes specialized tasks (functions) are easily to understand because of their affordances: “the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” [7, page 9].

So what would happen if this everyday object is added with a perceptual behavior, giving it a new characteristic? Would the user still be able to use/understand it functionalities and at the same time have a qualitative conversation with the artifact by keeping the affordance the same? The reason why I am focusing on everyday objects is because they have a clear function and affordance, so when a extra character is added, in my case a perceptual behavior, it is easy to asses if the perceptual behavior improves or deteriorate its function and affordance.

a everyday object I already mentioned the amount of available everyday object in our household, so what would be a suitable type of everyday object that could be added with a perceptible character. The first thing that popped up in my mind was furniture! These are everyday object that are used often in the household or better said there is no household without furniture. The main reason why I find this an interesting product, is that we buy furniture not only for their functional aspect, but also for their decorative aspect, because they should fit in the interior of our household. From the Ancient Egyptians were wealth was reflected in furniture design; to Georgian age were furniture stood for comfort and wealth; to the Industrial Revolution were furniture came accessible for the middle class; to the Modernism were newness, originality, technical innovation was important [8]. This history show clear traces that furniture was developed for both the decorative and functional character and in some cases even only for their decorative character. Looking from this point of view, could perception be added to the list of functional and decoration?

In this current age, the Information age [15], we are more and more surrounded with “high tech” technology, would this perceptible aspect than be a result of this age; just like in other ages, were a certain development affected furniture design [8]. I think the only way that this would be possible is that the functionality should

12

figure 3: history of interior design infographic [13]

13

03

not decay! I see the functionality of furniture as its essence! Dysfunctional furniture would affect its affordance in a negative way: What would a chair be, when you can’t sit on it; what would a closet be, when you can’t open it to store things in? So when designing perceptible furniture it is important that the focus is put on its functionality added with sub focuses on decoration and the perceptible behavior.

Coming back to this research project, there are a lot of points that I mentioned in the current and the previous chapters, but it’s important that I set a direction in order to have a valuable design research project! There are particular two direction which are interesting for this research: 1. How can perceptible furniture be made attractive enough for consumers so that they are willing to purchase it?

2. How should perceptible furniture be designed in order that the users are willing to use them in their household?

Direction 1 is about the marketing aspect and direction 2 is about the “behavior design aspect” of perceptible furniture. Both direction are related to each other: before users can use these furniture, they first have to buy it (both direction in a nutshell)!

Now I believe that focusing on both directions would be to broad for this research project. Therefore I will be focusing on direction 2, the development of a perceptible furniture. The main reason for this is that first direction doesn’t fit the design brief of this (Es)Sence project, while the second direction fits this project a lot better!

When looking at the development of a perceptible furniture and especially on the development of its perceptible behavior I am interested in the notion of Course of Perception in Time [1]. Deckers et. al described in their paper “Perceptual Crossing: Applying and Evaluating Design Notions” a set of 7 design notion which are necessary for designing perceptive qualities in an artifact; one of them is Course of Perception in Time. Deckers et. al state the next about this particular design notion: “This notion refers to the experience and thus to the awareness of bygone perception and the anticipation of future perception. The implementation of this notion is complex and implies that the artifact relies on history and anticipates on what could happen next. The implementation of, as it were, experience will enhance the richness of actions and expressivity of the artifact in relation to the subject’s activity.” [1, page 11] I believe that this particular notion could seriously add an extra value to perceptible furniture. Think about furniture which is able to get older in behavior, causing that the interaction between subject and artifact could differ over time. This particular

14

03

point I find interesting! We often use furniture in our household, each time we use it in a different way: when we are angry, happy or in a hurry; all without really taking the feeling of the furniture into account; which is perfectly normal because furniture are inanimate objects. So what would happen when a subject slam the door of the closet and the furniture react e.g. by showing that it’s irritated, will the subject than understand that he/she is “hurting” the artifact and therefore try to calm this furniture down?

type of time notion Adding the notion of Course of Perception in Time in a perceptive furniture can be done in several ways. I myself find two particular types the most interesting: 1. Mood change: This would be an artifact which is able to change its mood through the information that it perceives in its environment when interacting with an subject.

2. Aging: This would be an artifact which is able to get older in time, through its perceiving it develops an experience of past situations, which will make it more wise after years and years For this short research project it would be the most feasible to research the mood change, purely because the aging will take too much time for users to eventual understand this behavior, which is impossible to user validate in one semester! As for the mood change, the users should be able to see a clear contrast between the different moods. The number of different moods will be limited to two different types, because more than two will make it more complicated for me to validate if users are able to perceive this mood change; Especially for a research project it should be kept simple!

15

04

HEAD QUESTION “combining all the research decribed in the previous chapter to define a head research question”

16

04

In the previous chapters I had a philosophical approach and first tried to open the question on how the theory about perceptual crossing could add value to this society, from here on I started to focus on different directions to specify my research goal in more depth to eventually develop the next head question: Would the behavior of a perceptive furniture, based on the notion of Course of Perception in Time, be recognized as a perceptive? If so could this perceptive aspect then become the reason why users would use or have these furniture in their household, just like decoration in the previous ages?

In this head question the focus is in put on recognizing the perceptual aspect and the sub-focus on the added value of perceptual furniture in our environment. The reason for this order is that I find the head focus more feasible to asses compared to the sub-focus. The head focus could be easily assessed by presenting the subject two different types of behaviors, which should be in contrast: one perceptible (based on the notion of Course of Perception in Time) and the other one as a non-perceptible (only reaction on action). Through this I could let the subjects experience and understand this new language of perceptible furniture when having a interplay with it.

From here on I could put the furniture in the context of a household and ask them to interact with it as it where in that situation. Through this it would be possibly to gain useful qualitative feedback from the user about the sub-focus. This particular technique is based on co-reflection [11] and is about first exploring, analyzing the situation and afterwards ideating and confronting in where the subject will use the furniture, when he/she is confronted with it in situation. This user validation is a good method to gain qualitative feedback, which is necessary to research the head question! More about this will be discussed in the Chapter 7 Experiment.

hypothesis I assume that the subjects certainly will be able to recognize the object as a perceptual furniture, if I am able to create an furniture which is able to express certain human characteristic in its behavior, what should trigger the subjects to come-up with emotional metaphors such as angry, nervous, excited, etc. If the subjects are able to understand this anthropomorphistic behavior, there is a big chance that they find it perceptive!

When the subjects consider this as a perceptive furniture, will they consider using it in their household? I am less sure about the outcome of this sub-question compared to the head-question, because it could go into two direction. If they see a future with perceptive furniture, than this would probably be because the functionality and

17

04

“a balance between functionality and perceptive behavior“

figure 4: a simplified picture hypothesis

FUNCTION

PERCEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

A

B

FUNCTION

>

PERCEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

affordance was retained! While it could also be possible that the subject find is useless, could be because the playfulness of perceptive artifacts caused that the functionality decayed, making the object more “gadgety” or “arty”.

One figure 4: a simplified picture is illustrated based on the guidelines given in the hypothesis in order for perceptive furnitures to create value in our society.

18

05

EXPLORATION “a technology based exploration to research how a perceptual mood behavior could be developed”

19

05

“Showing me that it had an own will, what associated me with emotion metaphors”

Before the actual development of the perceptual furniture, a quick exploration was performed, trying to understand how a mood behavior could be developed. This exploration was based on technology; different sensors and actuators were used and transformed to artifacts with the help of the Arduino platform [12]. This platform was used to program a mood behavior. I tried to develop an artifact which was able to set up a mood-value based on sensor information in its environment, in my case a light sensor measuring the intensity of light, together with a textile sensor, what was measuring the human force put on it, translated to various actuators controlling their values: LED (intensity), DC motor (speed), servo (degree). The behavior measured the force what was put on the pressure sensor multiplying it with the light of the environment; mapping this amount’s max on 1000 and amount’s min 0, considered as the mood-value. If mood-value was between {0 – 200} artifact would be calm, while between {800 – 1000} it would become hyper-active; the phase between {200 – 800} could be considered as neutral, but the value of the actuators would certainly grow or decrease more, depended on the mood-value. The shift back from calm to neutral, would take x * light sensor, in where the variable x can be considered as a smoothing variable.

When I was interacting with this artifact, I noticed that its behaviors were totally different from the artifact that I am used, artifacts which are based on action-reaction.

Showing me that it had an own will, what associated me with emotion metaphors such as angry, nervous and scary. Through this experience I saw how anthropomorphism is connected to perceptual qualities. As for that, the anthropomorphistic character of the DC motor and servo were the most powerful, while that of a LED was difficult to understand compared to the other two. Apparently the aesthetics of dynamics can be easily translated to emotional metaphors.

Seeing this iteration as an inspiration I develop the final furniture, Duo Corpora Una Anima, what will be presented in the next chapter.

20

21

22

23

06

DCUA “the development of the perceptuals furniture duo corpera una anima is explained�

24

06

In this chapter I will present The furniture Duo Corpora Una Anima (DCUA), literal translated Two Bodies One Soul, a Siamese pair of drawers both capable in sensing each other’s sensory information. It is a functional furniture with an overtime changing behavior. DCUA is developed based on two main aspects: functional aspects of a closet and the anthropomorphistic behavior of Siamese Twins.

functional closet In this research I clearly explained the importance of functionality. The chosen furniture is a small wardrobe with two drawers. For the functionality it should be possible to open and close the drawers, when the users have to store or find something.

This furniture was especially chosen for this very direct simple functionality. The more simple the functionality of a furniture is, the easier it is to integrate it when developing a perceptible furniture.

siamese twin I found this concept of brothers interesting because it related to a very strong anthropomorphistic metaphor or value. In this context I’m referring to a situation in where a brother would stand up for his other brother, when something happens to him. This specific situation refers to a strong human tradition value, standing up for your loved ones. So if the drawers are able to express this value, the chance is bigger that subjects will be able to recognize it as a perceptive furniture. Second reason why I find it interesting is because it could support the functionality. When an user wants to open a drawer, this should become fully functional. The other drawer, its brother, could perceive the “mood” of the used closet and react on it through a certain action; the same for the other drawer, only the other way around. In this way I would be able to behold its function and perceptive behavior!

design The design is shown on figure 5.1 to 5.4. Drawer A is capable in sensing the pressure put on the handle when opening, while drawer B is able to sense the force which is used to open de closet. In an action-reaction situation when lots of force is put on the drawer A’s handle, will cause that drawer B will react by moving heavily from left to right (figure 5.1). The same goes for drawer B, when lots of force is put when opening the drawer. On figure 5.2, a schematic scheme is illustrated explaining all the factors influencing the artifact’s behavior. Next to the sensing of pressure and force, the artifact is also able to sense the environment light, which affects the action of the drawers. This design aspect is based on the notion of Reaction to External

25

26

06

Event [1, page 10]. As I mentioned before in this research, these set of design notion are necessary when developing a perceptible artifact. Therefore by adding this notion, make the chance bigger that the subjects “earlier” recognizes the final design as perceptive. On figure 5.3 & 5.4 the extensive behavior description is illustrated.

It shows how the mood of both individual drawers are influenced, that influences the actions of DCUA. The mood is a value, which calculates if the action should be performed calm, aggressive or neutral.

The drawers will affect each other’s mood. The amount and length (time) of force put on the handle of drawer A sets the mood for drawer B, while the speed and length (time) of one after another opening and closing drawer B will affect the mood of drawer A. When the light is too bright or too weak, the growth of the mood-value towards aggressive will be faster. The light also influences the activity of the furniture, after the furniture is used, the length of being active afterward will be calculated based on the light information; when the light is too bright or too weak it will stop earlier. This time length will be reset when the furniture is used again.

The first time when interacting with the furniture, no activity will be perceived by the user. When the user opens drawer A, it can be used for its functionality. When the handle is released, the drawer will start moving from left to right. The same goes for the drawer B. When both drawers are moving it’s possible to affect the mood by for example annoying drawer B by opening and closing the drawer, which will cause that drawer A will subtly move faster. Drawer A can be calmed down by moving away, which will mean that it will keep moving fast for a certain time based on light information, till it calms down. Another way to calm down without drawer A moving fast is by using it’s functionality; when drawer A is opened, it will stop moving. When the subject waits for a moment till he/she thinks it will be calmed down and closes the drawer, it will not move as fast as before. When the user is ready using the closet it will keep moving till the moment it decides to stop based on light information.

27

figure 5.1: sensing capability dcua part 1

DRAWER A

ABILITY TO SENSE PRESSURE

DRAWER B

ABILITY TO SENSE STRETCH

SPEED LEVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ACTION

SENSE LEVEL PRESSURE

SENSE LEVEL STRETCH

ACTION

SPEED LEVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

28

figure 5.2: sensing capability dcua part 2

LIGHT (EVENT)

SENSORY INFORMATION AFFECTS ACTION

ACTION

ABILITY TO SENSE PRESSURE

ABILITY TO SENSE STRETCH

ACTION

29

figure 5.3: mood behavior dcua part 1

LIGHT (EVENT)

THE SPEED OF DECREAS OR GROWTH DEPENDS ON EVENT

MOOD VALUE

CALM

AGGRESSIVE ACTION THE LENGHT OF ACTION IS DEPENDEND ON EVENT

GROWS OR DECREASES BASED ON STRETCH SUBJECT

30

figure 5.4: mood behavior dcua part 2

LIGHT (EVENT)

GROWS OR DECREASES BASED ON PRESSURE SUBJECT

THE LENGHT OF ACTION IS DEPENDEND ON EVENT THE SPEED OF DECREAS OR GROWTH DEPENDS ON EVENT

ACTION

CALM

AGGRESSIVE

MOOD VALUE

31

07

EXPERIMENT “performing an user research based on co-reflection & lab approach”

32

07

I assume that the subjects will be able to recognize DCUA as an perceptual furniture if they are able to understand the expressed anthropomorphistic characteristics, and they would only value using it in their household if the balance between functionality and perceptual behavior is in balance (figure 4, chapter 4). In order to test this hypothesis an experiment will be performed to research both focuses of the head question.

strategy The experiment will be based on the lab approach [3] combined with co-reflection [11]. In the lab approach the design and context are kept minimalistic in order to fully focus on the behavior of the artifact. Co-reflection is a methodological approach on user research focusing on design processes aimed at societal transformation. Both are qualitative user experiments. The lab approach will assist in researching the first focus of the head question, distinguishing the artifact as perceptual, and co-reflection will assist in researching the second focus of the head question, does perceptual furniture add value to our society. On figure 6.1 & 6.2 a schematic drawing is illustrated explaining the experiment strategy! The user experiment will consist of two phases, both individual addressing on the two different focuses of the head question. In phase one, the lab approach will be combined with the exploration phase of co-reflection to understand the difference between behavior 1 and 2, while in phase two the ideation phase and confrontation phase of co-reflection is combined in order to get qualitative feedback when the perceptive furniture is put in context. Each user session was filmed in order to see how the participant interacted with DCUA on figure 6.3 the set-up is shown. Also the drawers were filled with office items like paperclips to increase the affordance and functionality of the closet.

For the experiment 10 subjects were found from the age 20-27, all students from different studies on the Design Academy and University of Technology Eindhoven.

phase 1 As mentioned before, phase one is a combination of the lab approach combined with the first co-reflective tool, exploration, in where two different behaviors are compared in order to understand the differences between them. The exploration phase is the first of the three co-reflective tools [11] and is about analyzing social phenomena’s, which helps subjects to understand the context which is addressed to them, before they actually could ideate and be confronted with the design, the other two co-reflective tools, which will be elaborated more in phase two. The type of exploration, will be “re-enacting the experience” in where the subject gets empathy with the context when experiencing [11];

33

figure 6.1: schematic drawing experiment strategy part 1 phase phase 1 1

lab approach

behavior 1

exploration phase

comparing

behavior 2

questioning laddering technique

able to distinguish behavior 1 from 2?

34

[re-enacting the experience]

figure 6.2: schematic drawing experiment strategy part 2 phase phase 1 2

[fantastic storytelling]

ideation phase

confrontation phase

behavior 2

[contextual use of an artefact]

context

set of qualitative questions

does perceptive furniture add value to our society

35

07

figure 6.3: user set-up environment: big space no close border

stand DCUA

camera field

when this type of exploration is combined with the lab approach the next description can be set: The subject will analyze the artifact by getting empathy with the behavior when experiencing through exploration. In a context where the design and artifact is kept minimalistic and fully focused on the behavior.

During the exploration the subject will be asked to experience the next two behaviors: Behavior 1: action-reaction behavior Behavior 2: perceptive behavior Behavior 2 is the actual designed behavior for DCUA, while behavior 1 is a second developed behavior, based on action-reaction, purely for this user experiment. When a subject should distinguish a perceptive artifact, he/she should also be exposed to a behavior which is in contract, behavior 1. If the subject is able to understand this difference, he/she will probably also distinguish a perceptive artifact, like discussed in chapter 4. After experiencing both behavior, a list of open qualitative questions as presented in the research of Deckers et. al [1] will be asked for each behavior based on the laddering technique [9]. These question will ensure that all relevant topics of

36

07

the design are addressed to get a better understanding about the subject’s experience.

phase 2 The second phase of the user experiment will be focused on contextualizing the perceptual artifact as a perceptive furniture. This will be done by using the last two tools of co-reflection: ideation and confrontation. In the first part, the ideation phase, the context will be explained based on “relating values to behaviours” in where sensory metaphors are used to facilitate understanding of a complex emotional system [11], in my case a perceptual furniture. In part 2, the confrontation, DCUA will be again experienced based on “contextual use of an artifact” [11] in where the subject is confronted with an artifact as a possible proof of the concept, in my case a valuable perceptive furniture. In the final phase a qualitative discussion based on a list of open question will be held in order to get qualitative output for the last focus of the head question, does perceptive furniture add value to our society.

measurements Subjects were first asked to experience behavior 1, till the moment they thought they understood it. Second they were asked to experience behavior 2 again till the moment they understood it. In the last part of this phase they were asked to describe both behaviors to compare and elaborate on the clarity, their preference, pleasantness and involvement based on the next 6 questions: 1. global description of the experience “it looks like if it can feel when I am pinching it” 2. the feeling of being perceived “when I opened the drawer it stops moving” 3. preference for one of the two conditions “I liked the second one, because it is more relaxed” 4. clarity of the behavior “the first one is easier to understand, because it react directly, while the second one is more harder to understand how it reacts” 5. the experience pleasantness “it gives me feeling of me controlling it, I feel powerful” 6. the experienced feeling of involvement “In the second one I felt more involved, because it really reacted on my actions” In the second phase the subjects were first explained about the context of this re-

37

07

search project, explaining that DCUA is a perceptual furniture. Second they were asked to explore with it as in context (behavior 2). Finally a set of four open question were asked to discuss about the possible value of DCUA in the future: 1. Could it this furniture be functional, why not or why yes? “no I don’t find the behavior useful, why should a closet have a behavior?”

2. Would this behavior be a reason to use this closet?

“I think so, it feels like a little creature, which gives the closet a new meaning. Opening a closet is now more fun” 3. Can you maybe also explain me what kind of feeling the closet tries to transfer to you when using it?

“It tries to show me that it should be handled with care and not like it is a dead object” 4. Do you see a nearby future in where a concept like this could add value to you household? Or is it just a gadget, a piece of abstract art?

“I consider it as a gadget, because this behavior doesn’t add something which would be necessary for me” The results of these interviews were analyzed with the use of the affinity diagram [14] by clustering the different qualitative answers together in order to find interesting patterns to elaborate more on the head question, more will be discussed in the next chapter.

Next to this a video camera recorded how the subjects interacted with the DCUA in order to map their hand movements. This mapping will show which different parts of DCUA are touched during the interaction. A visual mapping will be given in the next chapter.

pilot Before the actual experiment, a pilot was performed with a student from this department. When I asked him to experience DCUA, he basically just stood and moved along the prototype for 5 minutes in the expectation that it would react on distance.

That’s why I shortly explained that he should touch the artifact in order to provoke a reaction from it. So for the eventual user experiment I explained each subject that they should touch the artifact before they started with the experiment

38

08

RESULTS “presenting the different results through the affinity diagram and visual hand mapping�

39

08

“he becomes nervous when I keep touching his brother”

In this chapter the results of the affinity diagram and the hand movement will be separately presented.

affinity diagram On figure 7.1 & 7.2 the mapping of the affinity diagram is illustrated. During the development of this diagram, all answers and description, extracted from the subjects, were first separately clustered in their own category of their question. This was done for both questionnaires; from here on relations were made between different categories in each individual questionnaire and finally relations were made between the two questionnaires. These relations are illustrated with the numbers 1-9 in figure 7.1 & 7.2.

connections 1. The connection between 3 categories show that the subjects describe behavior 2, mood change, as human, subtle and calm.

2. This connection between 2 categories shows that the perceptive behavior is mainly considered as playful.

3. This difference relation in 1 category between the two behaviors shows that both behaviors were recognized as different. Behavior 1 was found action on reaction, while the second was more found human.

4. This difference relation in 1 category in connection with the clarity of the behavior shows clearly that subjects were able to distinguish behavior 1 from 2 and otherwise.

5. These two connections, 3 & 4, combined shows again that the users were able to understand the difference between behavior 1 and 2 and were even able to understand that behavior 2 was more perceptive. But it also show that they didn’t understand the aspect of mood changing of behavior 2.

6. This connection between 3 categories show that adding perceptive to an artifact makes the artifact more playful.

7. This connection between 2 categories shows that a perceptive behavior makes it attractive for using the artifact in a playful way.

40

08

8. This connection between 1, 2 and the transferred feeling shows that behavior 2 was often connected with anthropomorphistic metaphors, showing that behavior 2 has perceptual aspects.

9. This connection between the different behaviors shows that both behaviors were considered as perceptual, showing that the subjects don’t know the exact meaning of perception.

When looking at all these relations certain points come forward. It is clear that the subject were able to understand the difference between behavior 1 and 2. A subject said: “the first one reacts on the action that you perform on it and the second one is more natural it is more human” Also they describe behavior 2 with anthropomorphistic characters and metaphors.

A user said: “he becomes nervous when I keep touching his brother” Especially the use of “he”, and an emotional metaphor, “nervous”, show that the subjects were able to indirectly understand that behavior 2 was more perceptive.

Although when looking in the category clarity of behavior some subjects have difficulty in understanding the mood behavior. A subject said: “I think I know on what it react, but I don’t know for sure” This shows a little contradiction with the information that subjects were able to distinguish behavior 2 as perceptive. How can some subjects see the furniture as perceptive if they don’t exactly understand its behavior?

These connection also show that the subject related playfulness to the behavior, showing a clear link between perceptive and playfulness. Some subject even only used the furniture for its playfulness: “its playfulness triggered me to use it” This actually shows the advantage and threat of a playful perceptual furniture together. The playfulness would be an advantage to trigger the subject in using it, while the threat would be that the functionality could decay, as discussed in Chapter 4.

41

figure 7.1: affinity diagram part 1 5

3

1.

2.

GLOBAL

THE

FEELING OF

DESCRIPTION

BEING

OF THE

PERCEIVED

EXPERIENCE

3.

PREFERENCE FOR ONE OF

4.

CLARITY

5.

6.

THE

OF THE

EXPERIENCE

BEHAVIOR

PLEASANTNESS

THE

EXPERIENCED FEELING OF

THE TWO

INVOLVEMENT

CONDITIONS

Four Different Groups: vague, dominant, calm, pair reaction

One Clear group: action - on -reaction!

(8/10)

One clear Group: natural, calm, quiet (7/10)

One clear Group: natural, subtle human (8/10)

other groups were less important, based on characteristic of sensing

other group: no real info, useless info

Clearly the favorite: 2, because calm, natural, human, subtle (9/10) other group, likes one because it was more busy so more adventure

One Clear Group: subject answer that the pinching was a clear, but didn’t understand the second closet (8/10)

One clear Group: also understood the clarity of the furniture, but again had diffuculty in understandin the second closet (9/10)

One Group: big involvement, because it was playfull, active (10/10)

One Clear group: playfull, happy fun (8/10) other group: useless info

One Group: big involvement, because it was playfull, active (10/10)

One clear Group: playfull, happy, positive (9/10) other group: no real info, useless info

2 1

4

9

42

figure 7.2: affinity diagram part 2

8

1. COULD

IT

THIS

FURNITURE BE FUNCTIONAL, WHY NOT OR WHY YES?

2. WOULD

3. CAN

THIS

BEHAVIOR BE

EXPLAIN ME

A REASON TO

WHAT KIND OF

USE THIS CLOSET

YOU

MAYBE ALSO

FEELING THE

?

CLOSET TRIES TO TRANSFER TO YOU WHEN USING IT?

4. DO

YOU

SEE A NEARBY FUTURE IN WHERE A CONCEPT LIKE THIS COULD ADD VALUE TO YOU

HOUSEHOLD?

OR

IS IT

JUST A

GADGET, A PIECE OF ABSTRACT ART?

clear answer from everybody, can’t be functional, unless: the movement should be more related to the functionality, more simple, the behavior should fit the furniture!

(10/10)

various groups: finding it playfull, caring. compulsive, nervous, aks for attention the common connection is that the names are connected to human emotional behaviors, relating it to antropromorf

one clear group1: answering yes: asks for attention, invites to use it, shows off (8/10) second group: don’t find the use of a perceptive behavior interesting!

(2/10)

one clear group: finding it art, gadget, toy!

(8/10) the others gave comment on how it should be changed in order to become more functional: more subtile, less machine. and even say that this would be to early for this age!

7

6

43

44

08

hand mapping On figure 7.3 & 7.4 the hand mapping of the subjects is illustrated for phase 1 and 2 of the experiment. In phase 1 there are 4 clear categories. The largeness of the circles define the touch intensity of the subjects. Therefore the intensity of category 1 is the biggest, while that of category 4 is the lowest. Same goes for phase 2 but only for two categories.

phase 1 1. It is clear that the often touched area is the handle of each drawer, which is necessary to provoke a reciprocal interplay between subject and artifact.

2. The second category is the area inside the drawer, subject tried to empty the drawer to see if it would react, which shows that subject were able to understand the functionality of the furniture which could be used to store and find items 3. In the third category subjects tried to touch the top of each drawer, this mainly happened in the first minutes of the first behavior as some subject thought it reacted because they were putting resistance to the movement of the DC motor 4. The last category is a bunch of areas which were again touched during the first minutes of the first behavior. The subjects were quickly able to understand that these areas did not provoke a interplay.

This observation shows two clear points. The subjects were able to understand through exploration which areas were necessary for having an interplay with the artifact. While the second point addresses that subject also got triggered in thinking that using the functionality (pulling thing out of the drawer) would also provoke a interaction. This a very valid point addressed by the subjects, why isn’t the behavior based on the functionality, instead of only adding a characteristic to it?

phase 2 1.Just like in phase 1 the often touched area is the handle of both drawers.

2.Again just like phase 1, the second touch intensity was measured in the area inside the drawer. But this time for other reasons, the subject tried to use the functionality of the furniture combined with the behavior.

As for this phase the remarkable point is that the handle area was more touch intensive than the area inside the drawer; as subject were more interested in playing with the furniture rather using it for its functionality.

45

figure 7.3: hand mapping part 1

phase 1 1 phase

category 1 category 2 category 3 category 4

46

figure 7.4: hand mapping part 2

phase 2 1 phase

category 1 category 2

47

08

“Which shows traces of decaying functionality, but also a sign that the perceptual behavior should be more based on its functionality!”

conclusion The users are able to distinguish the second behavior, mood behavior, as perceptual.

Although there is a little contradiction in the clarity of the behavior; the characteristics of the behavior were able to expose anthropomorphistic metaphors to the subjects, making the behavior more human, therefore more perceptual.

It also clearly shows that perceptual goes together with playful. The research of Merleau-Ponty [5] describe a: “reciprocal interplay between subject and artifact”.

The interplay clearly shows the connection of playfulness with perceptual artifacts, making it attractive for subject to use it.

As for the hand patterns the first phase isn’t that special, subject were able to understand which areas were important in order to communicate with the furniture.

While the results of phase two are more remarkable. The subjects are more interested in playing with the furniture rather than using its functionality. Which shows traces of decaying functionality, but also a sign that the perceptual behavior should be more based on its functionality!

48

09

DISCUSSIONS “discussion based on researching if DCUA can be considered as a valuable perceptive furniture”

49

09

“Playfulness should not be seen as a threat but more as an enrichment”

The research question: “Would the behavior of a perceptive furniture, based on the notion of Course of Perception in Time, be recognized as a perceptive? If so could this perceptive aspect then become the reason why users would use or have these furniture in their household, just like decoration in the previous ages?”

Could I argue that the subjects were able to recognize DCUA as a perceptive furniture? I believe they certainly did. The finding in the previous chapter clearly show that the subjects were able to recognize DCUA as a perceptive furniture, what they clearly prove in their descriptions when explaining the differences between the two tested behaviors. They relate the mood behavior to different anthropomorphistic metaphors, making clear that subjects were certainly able to link the behavior of DCUA to perceptive. Next to recognizing the perceptive character of the artifact, they were also able to recognize it as a furniture. The hand mapping in the previous chapter clearly shows that the subjects were able to discover that the artifact could be used as a closet.

So the subject were able to recognize DCUA as a perceptive furniture, but do they value using it in their household? The conclusion of the experiment clearly show that DCUA in its current “form” would not be valuable as furniture in the household. Subject didn’t find the behavior useful, as most of them argued why a closet needed a behavior. Still I see that DCUA can be transformed to a valuable furniture if the next point are enhanced in its design: 1. The behavior should be more based on its functionality, DCUA in its current form was just based on adding a random perceptual character to it. The observation of the hand mapping, shows clear traces that subjects intuitively started opening the drawers of the closet to see it would react when items were put in or taken out.

Showing that the behavior should have reacted on this aspect and not on its current aspect.

50

09

2. Playfulness should not be seen as a threat but more as an enrichment, as the playfulness of DCUA was considered as a motivation for using it. This research clearly proves that playfulness goes hand in hand with perceptive qualities. Therefore the playfulness should not be exterminated but used as a quality to enrich the value of perceptive furniture On figure 8 a figure is illustrated presenting the requirement for a valuable perceptual furniture, addressing the described points above added to the previous figure discussed in chapter 4.

As for this research discussion I will end by mentioning a description given by a subject during the experiment, which embraces the requirements illustrated on figure 9: “Why could this furniture not be an old ‘rommelkast’ (= closet cutter) with lots of drawers, which helps me to store and find items through a perceptive suggestion system, making it fun for me to search through it!”

This sentence describes a possible concept that corresponds with the improved requirement discussed in this chapter. Its behavior is based on its functionality, making it more fun for the user to use it. Taking this next step is necessary for developing valuable perceptive everyday objects!

51

figure 9: requirement for a valuable perceptive furniture

FUNCTION

PERCEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

A

B

FUNCTION

>

PERCEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

IS BASED ON THE FUNCTION

PLAYFULL INTERACTION

:) USER

52

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

53

10

“Thank you Adriaan, Eva & René”

I want to thank several people how assisted me during this research project.

I want to thank Adriaan de Regt for helping me out as a teammate during the pressure cooker.

I want to thank Eva Deckers for giving expert feedback when I had questions about this project Lastly I want to thank my project coach René Ahn, for assisting me as coach during this project by always giving motivational critical feedback during the coach meetings.

54

11

REFERENCES

55

11

“Pile, J, 2005, History of Interior Design, 2rd edn, Laurence King Publishing, London, United Kingdom”

[1] Deckers, E.J.L., Levy P.D., Wensveen S.A.G., Ahn, R.M.C., Overbeeke, C.J., (2012), Designing for Perceptual Crossing: Ap¬plying and Evaluating Design Notions, Unpublished Revised ver¬sion in review for International Journal of Design [2] Duffy, Brian R. “Anthropomorphism and the social robot.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42.3 (2003): 177-190.Herbert simon [3] Koskinen I., Zimmerman J., Binder, T., Redström, J., Wensween S. (2012) Design Research Through Practice, Morgan Kaufmann, (2012), 51-65 [4] Lenay, C., Thouvenin, I., Guénand, A., Gapenne, O., Stewart, J., Maillet, B., et al., Designing the ground for pleasurable experience. DPPI 2007.

[5] Merleau-Ponty, M., (1958) Phenomenology of Perception (C. Smith, Trams).

Routledge & Kegan Paul, (Original Phénoménologie de la perception, 1945, Gallimard) [6] Nagai, Yukari, and Toshiharu Taura. “Design motifs: Abstraction driven creativity.” Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design 16.2 (2009): 62.

[7] Norman, Donald (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-06710-7.

[8] Pile, J, 2005, History of Interior Design, 2rd edn, Laurence King Publishing, London, United Kingdom [9] Rugg, G., McGeorge P., (1995) Laddering, Expert Systems, 12/4 (1995), 339246

56

11

[10] Simon, H. A. (1996) Sciences of the artificial third edition, Cambridge,MA,MIT Press.

[11] Tomico, Oscar. “Co-reflection. User involvement aimed at societal transformation.” Temes de disseny 26 (2009): 80-89.

[12] Arduino - Software.” 2008. 14 Jan. 2013 <http://arduino.cc/en/main/software> [13] “History of Interior Design [Infographic].” 2012. 14 Jan. 2013 <http://infographicjournal.com/history-of-interior-design/> [14] IDEO, Method cards 2002.

[15] “Information Decoration - Next Nature.” 2010. 14 Jan. 2013 <http://www. nextnature.net/2007/10/information-decoration/>

57

12

APPENDIX

58

A “behavior codes”

59

//Behavior 1 int int int int

b_1a; b_1b; b_2a; b_2b;

int motor1PinA = 10; int motor1PinB = 11; int motor2PinA = 5; int motor2PinB = 9; int pressureSensor; int fVpressureSensor; int nVpressureSensor; int int int int int int

stretchSensor; lightSensor; lightValue; valuePs; valueSts; valueR = 80;

int openClose; int fVopenClose; int nVopenClose; int int int int int

startUpA; startUpB; useLessWorkA; useLessWorkB; openCloseValue;

void setup() { Serial.begin(9600); pinMode(4, INPUT); pinMode(motor1PinA, OUTPUT); pinMode(motor1PinB, OUTPUT);

}

pinMode(motor2PinA, OUTPUT); pinMode(motor2PinB, OUTPUT);

void loop() {

b_1a b_1b b_2a b_2b

= = = =

digitalRead(2); digitalRead(4); digitalRead(7); digitalRead(8);

pressureSensor = analogRead(A0); stretchSensor = analogRead(A1); lightSensor = analogRead(A2); openClose = analogRead(A3); if (pressureSensor >= 800) { pressureSensor = 800; } if (pressureSensor <= 500) { pressureSensor = 500; } if (stretchSensor >= 650) { stretchSensor = 650; } if (stretchSensor <= 520) { stretchSensor = 520; } //sensorchange sensorChange(); Serial.print(pressureSensor); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(fVpressureSensor); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(nVpressureSensor); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(stretchSensor); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(lightSensor); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(useLessWorkA); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(lightValue); Serial.print(“,”); Serial.print(openClose); Serial.println(“.”);

valuePs = map(pressureSensor, 500, 800, 65, 140); valueSts = map(stretchSensor, 520, 650, 65, 140); lightValue = map(lightSensor, 0, 1000, 1000, 0); changeLeftRight(); freezeA_start(); freezeB_start(); } void sensorChange() { fVpressureSensor = nVpressureSensor - pressureSensor; nVpressureSensor = pressureSensor; fVopenClose = nVopenClose - openClose; nVopenClose = openClose; if (fVpressureSensor < 0) { fVpressureSensor = 0; } if (fVopenClose < 0) { fVopenClose = 0; }

}

void freezeA_start () { if (pressureSensor > 600) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); startUpA = 1; useLessWorkA = 0; } if (pressureSensor < 600 && startUpA == 1) {

analogWrite(motor1PinA, valueSts); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); startUpA = 0; } if (pressureSensor < 600) { useLessWorkA = useLessWorkA + 1; } if (useLessWorkA > lightValue * 5) { useLessWorkA = 0; analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); } } void freezeB_start () { if (stretchSensor > 530) { analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); startUpB = 1; useLessWorkB = 0; } if (openClose < 790) { //Serial.println(“...........stop............”); analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); openCloseValue = 1; } if (openClose > 790 && openCloseValue == 1) { //Serial.println(“...........stop............”); analogWrite(motor2PinA, valueSts); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); openCloseValue = 0; }

if (stretchSensor < 530 && startUpB == 1) { analogWrite(motor2PinA, valueSts); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); startUpB = 0; } if (stretchSensor < 530) { useLessWorkB = useLessWorkB + 1; } if (useLessWorkB > lightValue * 5) { useLessWorkB = 0; analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); } } void changeLeftRight() { if (b_1a == 1) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, valueSts); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); } if (b_1b == 1) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, valueSts); } if (b_2a == 1) { analogWrite(motor2PinA, valuePs); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); } {

}

}

if (b_2b == 1) analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, valuePs);

//Behavior 2 int int int int

b_1a; b_1b; b_2a; b_2b;

int motor1PinA = 10; int motor1PinB = 11; int motor2PinA = 5; int motor2PinB = 9; float pressureSensor; float sVpressureSensor; float stretchSensor; float sVstretchSensor; float lightSensor; float sVlightSensor; float timeLenght; int sVopenClose; int fVopenClose; int nVopenClose; int moodValueA; int moodValueB; float rawMoodA1; float rawMoodA2; float rawMoodB1; float rawMoodB2; float factorLight; int openClose; int startUp; int startUp2; int countActivityA; int countActivityB; void setup() {

Serial.begin(9600); pinMode(4, INPUT); pinMode(motor1PinA, OUTPUT); pinMode(motor1PinB, OUTPUT);

}

pinMode(motor2PinA, OUTPUT); pinMode(motor2PinB, OUTPUT);

void loop() { b_1a b_1b b_2a b_2b

= = = =

digitalRead(2); digitalRead(4); digitalRead(7); digitalRead(8);

pressureSensor = analogRead(A0); stretchSensor = analogRead(A1); lightSensor = analogRead(A2); openClose = analogRead(A3); if (pressureSensor >= 800) { pressureSensor = 800; } if (pressureSensor <= 500) { pressureSensor = 500; } if (stretchSensor >= 650) { stretchSensor = 650; } if (stretchSensor <= 520) { stretchSensor = 520; } sensorChange(); sVpressureSensor = map(pressureSensor, 500, 800, 1, 10); sVstretchSensor = map(stretchSensor, 520, 650, 1, 10); sVlightSensor = map(lightSensor, 0, 1000, 1, 10); sVopenClose = map(fVopenClose, 0, 20, 1, 10); timeLenght = map(lightSensor, 0, 1000, 1000, 0);

Serial.print(sVpressureSensor); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(sVstretchSensor); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(sVlightSensor); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(rawMoodA2); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(rawMoodB2); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(moodValueA); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(moodValueB); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(openClose); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(sVopenClose); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(countActivityA); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(countActivityB); Serial.print(“|”); Serial.print(timeLenght); Serial.println(“.”); changeLeftRight(); moodCalculate(); freeze(); //freezeB(); } void sensorChange() { fVopenClose = nVopenClose - openClose; nVopenClose = openClose; if (fVopenClose < 0) { fVopenClose = 0; } if (fVopenClose > 20)

{ }

}

fVopenClose = 20;

void freeze () { if (sVpressureSensor >= 3) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); startUp2 = 1; countActivityB = 0; } if (sVpressureSensor < 3 && startUp2 == 1) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, moodValueB); startUp2 = 0; } if (openClose < 780)

{

analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); startUp = 1; countActivityB = 0;

} if (openClose > 780 && startUp == 1) { analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, moodValueA); startUp = 0; } countActivityB = countActivityB + if (countActivityB > timeLenght) { countActivityB = 0; analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0);

1 ;

} } void freezeB () {

} void moodCalculate () { if (sVlightSensor >= 8) { factorLight = map (sVlightSensor, 8, 10, 1, 2); //factorLight = 2; } if (sVlightSensor <= 2)

{ }

factorLight = map (sVlightSensor, 1, 2, 2, 1); //factorLight = 2;

if (sVlightSensor > 2 && sVlightSensor < 8) { factorLight = 1; } if (sVpressureSensor >= 7) { rawMoodB1 = map (sVpressureSensor, 7, 10, 1, 5); rawMoodB2 = rawMoodB2 + (rawMoodB1 * factorLight); } if (sVpressureSensor <= 3) { rawMoodB1 = map (sVpressureSensor, 1, 3, 2, 1); rawMoodB2 = rawMoodB2 - (rawMoodB1 * factorLight); } /* if (sVstretchSensor >= 7) { rawMoodA1 = map (sVstretchSensor, 6, 10, 1.5, 5); rawMoodA2 = rawMoodA2 + (rawMoodA1 * factorLight); }

if (sVstretchSensor <= 3) { rawMoodA1 = map (sVstretchSensor, 1, 3, 2, 1); rawMoodA2 = rawMoodA2 - (rawMoodA1 * factorLight); } */ if (sVopenClose <= 2) { rawMoodA1 = map (sVstretchSensor, 1, 3, 2, 1); rawMoodA2 = rawMoodA2 - (rawMoodA1 * factorLight); } if (sVopenClose >= 3) { rawMoodA1 = map (sVstretchSensor, 3, 10, 5, 10); rawMoodA2 = rawMoodA2 + (rawMoodA1 * factorLight); } moodMap(); motorValues(); } void moodMap () { if (rawMoodA2 >= 500) { rawMoodA2 = 500; } if (rawMoodA2 <= 0) { rawMoodA2 = 0; } if (rawMoodB2 >= 2000)

{ }

rawMoodB2 = 2000;

if (rawMoodB2 <= 0) { rawMoodB2 = 0; }

} void motorValues () { if (rawMoodB2 >= 1800) { moodValueA = 140; } if (rawMoodB2 <= 150) { moodValueA = 70; } if (rawMoodB2 > 150 && rawMoodB2 < 2000) { moodValueA = map(rawMoodB2, 0, 2000, 70, 140); } //-------------------------if (rawMoodA2 >= 400) { moodValueB = 140; } if (rawMoodA2 <= 100) { moodValueB = 70; } if (rawMoodA2 > 100 && rawMoodA2 < 400) { moodValueB = map(rawMoodA2, 0, 500, 70, 140); } } void changeLeftRight() { if (b_1a == 1) { analogWrite(motor1PinA, moodValueB); analogWrite(motor1PinB, 0); Serial.println(“xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”); }

if (b_1b == 1) { Serial.println(“xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”); analogWrite(motor1PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor1PinB, moodValueB); } if (b_2a == 1) { Serial.println(“bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb”); analogWrite(motor2PinA, moodValueA); analogWrite(motor2PinB, 0); } {

}

}

if (b_2b == 1) Serial.println(“cccccccccccccccccccccccc”); analogWrite(motor2PinA, 0); analogWrite(motor2PinB, moodValueA);

B “visuals DCUA”

73

C “affinity diagram visuals”

77