214: Visualization

PDF: VanRossum_Nara.pdf

I sent it to the printer and hope to pick it up tomorrow morning. I found a spelling mistake in my print file, however. I keep forgetting 'transPARENT' not 'transPERANT'. Doh!

CART214: Info visualization Progress

I’m trying to play-up the idea of a confusing squeeze. I’ve left out all elective classes so far. I’ll take me a lot of time to create the data for those and I’m not sure how to even show them without it becoming a mess (more than it is). I like the shape turning into gritted teeth, but I may also want to break-up the pattern highlighting the days which are a breeze to schedule. Monday in winter term starts becoming impossible at the 300+ level, but the main issue is trying to squeeze in all those 200 level classes that are pre-req for the later classes. The graphic is more about frustration and planning under unfavourable circumstances than it is about the program in general. The areas I’d highlight are the conflicts between ENCS 393 and everything, as well the minor grudge-match between CART 411 and COMP 345.

I condensed the 300 and 400 level because of how few 400 level classes there are, especially since I didn’t left out the electives. Adding the electives will add a whole bunch more research.

I need to get some rest. Discrete Mathematics test tomorrow.

CART211: Response Catch-up

Magic in the Stone

I felt the most interesting parts of this reading was how it connected the seemingly very different things I’ve been learning about in my other classes (mostly Boolean algebra and java coding). The idea of creating a computer from switches wasn’t new to me, however, the idea of the levels of abstraction creating a sort of magic was not something I had thought of before. Magic as a continuously abstracted and built upon base of binary was very interesting to me, and I might use that idea in a fiction project in the future.

The early computers seemed very game-like, with simple rule-sets and simple mechanics to create something that reacted to ‘coding’. However, I had a lot of trouble figuring out his diagrams. Though I could understand the circuits (and liked how they connected nicely with the and and or of Boolean logic), the mechanical ones were difficult to grasp, I supposed because I haven’t seen similar diagrams before and don’t know how they would actually move or function.

Hydraulics was an novel take on the binary/analog idea. I suppose instead of it being ‘and’ and ’or’ driven it would be ‘enough of both’ and ‘enough of either’, where ‘enough’ triggers the switch. It becomes less Boolean and more functions and relations nested in Booleans. Eg: P(x,y,z): (x+y=z)

Though removing the binary from the computer might be an eventual goal, I’m not really sure if we would want a computer that could be at the most basic level is uncertain (when something can be neither true nor false).

I admit that his descriptions of the inner workings of a modern computer with “restoring logic” really lost me, especially the idea of how transistors conserve the voltage like a valve conserving water pressure. I suppose I’ll understand it better once I take COMP 228: System Hardware next term.

 

Ubiquitous Computing

It was interesting seeing how Jun Rekimoto first presented a problem, suggested a solution, went into a conceptualization for the user, then looked for ways to give the user positive feedback from the action. It seems like a really simple idea when you first look at it, I suppose that shows how well people would be able to adapt to it. It seems simple only when you look at it from a point of view that ignores the technology behind it, but I can see how this kind of view-point would be best for creating interfaces that work hard to interact with humans and not the other way around.

The idea of computers which are aware of context is one that really expands what computers can do and how well they can react to people. For some examples: a computer that knows when the user is stressed could improve performance and cut back on background tasks so that programs run more smoothly, or a context sensitive computer might control an environment, being playful (projecting interesting images on random objects), serious (controlling light and sound to increase productivity) or even useful (projecting a clock on the wall in front of you to remind you of an appointment, etc.)

Seeing as how much of a problem it was trying to create a “universal remote” for TV/video players, I see this running up against resistance from the technology makers. If you can only use a specific input device for a product then they can sell more input-devices. The kinect is interesting in that way, since the controller is actually a camera, however, since each object having it’s own camera might get cluttered as well, the idea of unifying input is probably going to be very important in the future. Once a company has spent the money to develop a novel input system, however, it seem unlikely to want to share it among competitors. This is definitely a hurdle for unified input like Jun’s pick-and-drop.

CART211: Response

The article on physical computing really highlighted how much trouble I have think in terms of high/low level thinking. I find it very difficult to divorce concept and production. The author presents a good case for keeping the technology and concept separate from the start.

A fascinating aspect that was just touched upon was the the computer's ability to reduce the barriers of time and space. The idea of multi-dimensional-time-travel-illusions is difficult to resist.

Expanding the view of what inputs a computer might want to read off of a human is a bit difficult, the reason why keyboards and mice work is that people have adapted to them to the point of stopping/reducing the sense of body when at a computer. Typing is generally unselfconscious.

Taking it from another angle, if the computer had to take readings off of a human, it would want the most information it could have to make a context dependent, decision. Taking that example of the automatic blinds that could sense temperature and light, maybe it would also want to know if there was someone in that room, what they were doing, maybe even if the brain-waves of that person were indicating an aversion to the heat or light?

The input/output divide is also interesting, but new input methods seems to be a lot less open a topic than new output methods. With both methods, I have a lot of difficulty getting away from the mouse-keyboard/screen-projectors methods. I suppose that comes with time.
Seems like a good book. I'm not sure if I'll finish the parts on circuits though.

-----------------------------------------------

The article on Hiroshi Ishii and his student’s projects was very interesting. The elements that stood out for me were those of engaging more than the eyes and the TUI’s requirements for very mutable objects.

Movies definitely capitalize on the fact that it is very easy to get lost in sight and sound and ignore the physical, but which came first, our ability to be disembodied for entertainment or media that focused excessively on only one or two senses and strove for total immersion?

The idea of having sound, touch and action play a larger role in our interactions with technology brings up some interesting questions: will the computer receive the information straight from the user and need to interpret it, or will this tangibility come as part of a more tangible/audible controller? An object you mould in your hands to control a visual space could be very interesting, but how would it deal with having a lot of functionality? Click/tap/gesture/press where and why? If it is just a learned behaviour, the object becomes a controller with physical methods rather than typing/mouse-movement. If the object interprets physical actions as they come, without this option for controlling the less intuitive parts, the experience is very different.

A Wacom for example, is fairly tangible. Its strengths are gestural, its weaknesses are control. It has trouble being adaptable enough to become the sole way of interacting with the computer data. A clay ball control would probably have similar troubles: being great for manipulating, but bad at triggering and controlling a wide array of programs.

Without the object (like a projection illusion) the options would be more malleable, but the tangible nature is a lot less stressed. Just like the wiimote, it won’t take long for someone to boil such gestural and active interaction down to the least possible movement.

Having worked with databases over the summer, I found the idea of a stackable/rack of objects representing data to be very interesting. The problem of saving, storing and recreating these combinations is the only thing that seems to be a problem to me. If the objects were smaller and easy to store in their combination, it could be a very interesting tool for dealing with complex data analysis.

CART214: Infographics

Option 1:

Number of scientific and technical journal articles by country and either number of universities, overall population or GDP.



The approach would be one of information texture, seeing the information added to world knowledge by number of people involved.
This is mostly if Option 2 doesn’t fly.

Option 2:

Using my own dataset on CART/COMP classes, studying the number of classes offered and number of pre-requisites, by time of year offered. Highlighting classes useful in computation arts, but difficult to schedule or fulfil requirements for.


* not counting: Independent Study, Internships and Special Topics


Three options of examining data.

The first bar-graph would be expanded to examine scheduling/requirement eccentricities, focussing on peculiarity and humour.
The first of the three sketches focuses on options and possibilities outside of the core classes in CART. The second focuses on the increasing number of non-core classes required over time in the program. The third takes a critical look at the non-core requirements in Cart and Comp over three years, highlighting the most potentially useful computer science classes to computation arts.

CART211: Instrument

I was most interested in  in the idea of an instrument that you could influence but not control. One idea is for an instrument that requires a group of people to play. A jungle-gym like structure where individuals move through the spaces (each with different acoustics and opportunities for sound) creating sound through active use of the space. Mixing dance and music seems like a good fit. A building that is a musical instrument would be an extension… Hallways that echo and reverb and play back sounds from previous musicians. Different floor materials and room shapes, as well as ambient noises all add elements to the music. Unlike must musical instruments however, something this large would have to be tied to a specific location. The music created would either be participatory or highly performative, because the results are difficult to repeat and may be difficult to record. Also, there would be something lost in the recording process: the visual/situational elements are also very connected to this type of instrument. I imagine running through the halls making music, or a gym that plays back remixed versions of the sound its members are making while working out. Spatial and active interaction with the instrument alters the sound around you, essentially helping to build a real soundtrack to a person’s life.

CART214: Icons

   

 

Five Icons and a bonus.
Study-Zone, No-Endless Computer time, Juggle Everything, Sleep-stop, It-costs-money-don’t-you-dare-want-it, This-is-a-leg’it-Zone.

Data-Sets I liked:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access_to_health_care.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/healthy.htm

CART211: Reading Response

*See main site for the final project proposal.*

The Joseph Weizenbaum article, “From Computer Power and Human reason: From Judgement to Calculation”, was an interesting read. I agreed with a lot of his basic points but don’t agree with his conclusions. I was moved by the passages about science as a creative pursuit and about the limiting of science to calculating the solution to problems as limiting or denying the power and freedom of thought.

That psychologists were so eager for some sort of technology to take over aspects of their jobs surprised Weizenbaum, but being a lazy, hopeful human, I can understand the wistful daydream of finally not doing the tedious parts of my job, delegating it to someone/something else. The way I see it, the training involved in some positions leads to a feeling of having been “programmed”, where individual approach is counter-productive and looking for a way to distance oneself from being the “information processor following rules” is to jump at the chance to have some of that tedious burden lifted by a machine.

Modeling is very important to understanding complicated systems, and there are risks in every model if held too long. The “autonomous machine-like process” in a lot of ways seems to follow from the “factory production” model that was used for nearly everything after the industrial revolution kicked in. Both models dehumanize by minimizing the impact of individuals in the system, while they also put emphasis on efficiency and a non-emotional approach.

Weizenbaum then goes into his reasons against the science “drug” and rationality-is-logicality approach to decision making. The point I found that helped me reconcile this with my belief in the path of questioning (and science) was where he highlighted that science is built “on the shifting sand of fallible human judgement, conjecture and intuition”. What I took away from the article was that science itself is not bad, but the belief in any one part of it can hinder it and make it take on too much of a presence in every-day life.

Constant tearing down and rebuilding can do a lot of good, but I suppose scientists want to move forward, and you can’t do that if you know all you’re standing on is the “shifting sand” of humanity. Losing the assumption of a stable world, the autonomous model really doesn’t look quite as plausible. However there definitely are two different overlapping skill-sets between humans and computers, so there’s no real reason why they must be exactly like us anyway.

CART214: Memory Map - take 2