Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
24 hours til DAWN!
A day closer to DAWN. Another quick update.
The official Multimba poster has been released!!!
Moving on to more complex matters. On setting up Multimba in the exhibition space today, it 'dawned' (had to be done) on me that the threshold level set,(between 100 and 200) was not dependable. After further testing I realised that most of the sensors rise to the maximum level of 1023 when pressed. This results in a very dependable response when a sensor is pressed, plus it removes the multiple hits problem. Only downside is that sufficient force must be given, a force lacking in the soft leather bags of our mallets. Nevertheless this is only a prototype. I'm currently tweaking the electronics so that each sensor frequency value can reach the maximum.
Other than that, the exhibition layout is good and graphics look great on projector screens.
2 days til DAWN!
The countdown is on to the DAWN exhibition. Here's an update on progress. Final prototype is complete, bar some fine tuning of electronics. After fastening hinges and applying logo vinyl, here's some pics of Multimba. 
After many days and nights of preparing the circuitry, many key points were notes. Firstly, the original wires should never have been removed from the sensors. Instead of spending hours on end soldering and resoldering, it would have been much more worthwhile to have just extended the wires. Forgive me, I'm an electronics virgin. Secondly, I have should have kept those breadboards that come with the Arduinos in the bag. Way too small and figity. Finally got myself some decent ones. Also, on the night of previous blog I thought I had cracked the undesired hits problem. I had one arduino working perfectly without any leakage(excuze my made-up terminology). No matter how much I tried this could not be replicated throughout. Explored many avenues of manipulating the Arduino code but to no avail. Finally decided not to use resistors. Set a threshold between 100 and 200. This plays a sound only when a player uses sufficient force(like any instrument) and fingers crossed my debounce time will prevent multiple hits. Still needs a bit of fine tuning. Some sensors seem to be misbehaving. Probably part due to the fact that the sensors used are so cheap and low quality. Something to think about for next project. Here's a short video of the underbelly of this fantastic prototype.
Evaluation sessions will take place at the DAWN exhibition.
After many days and nights of preparing the circuitry, many key points were notes. Firstly, the original wires should never have been removed from the sensors. Instead of spending hours on end soldering and resoldering, it would have been much more worthwhile to have just extended the wires. Forgive me, I'm an electronics virgin. Secondly, I have should have kept those breadboards that come with the Arduinos in the bag. Way too small and figity. Finally got myself some decent ones. Also, on the night of previous blog I thought I had cracked the undesired hits problem. I had one arduino working perfectly without any leakage(excuze my made-up terminology). No matter how much I tried this could not be replicated throughout. Explored many avenues of manipulating the Arduino code but to no avail. Finally decided not to use resistors. Set a threshold between 100 and 200. This plays a sound only when a player uses sufficient force(like any instrument) and fingers crossed my debounce time will prevent multiple hits. Still needs a bit of fine tuning. Some sensors seem to be misbehaving. Probably part due to the fact that the sensors used are so cheap and low quality. Something to think about for next project. Here's a short video of the underbelly of this fantastic prototype. Evaluation sessions will take place at the DAWN exhibition.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Final Report Submitted (Softbound) Fri Aug 24th
Final softboard report submitted on Friday, available at below link.
http://richie.idc.ul.ie/%7EHackettc/Thesis/MultimbaReport.pdf
Any suggested changes will be incorporated into hardbound report, due Sept 28th.
http://richie.idc.ul.ie/%7EHackettc/Thesis/MultimbaReport.pdf
Any suggested changes will be incorporated into hardbound report, due Sept 28th.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Meeting with Luigina Ciolfi - Aug 22nd (Evaluation)
Today we met with Luigina to sponge off her excellent skills and knowledge in evaluation techniques.
During the course of study, we were mainly focused on evaluating systems with user interfaces, usually GUI's. We knew that the same sort of techniques would not necessarily apply to our project. Before speakimg to Lui we were looking at undertaking a heuristic evaluation (evaluating the prototype with a number of chosen experts, based on set design principle criteria).
Lui advised that Heuristic Evaluation applies essentially to user interfaces, and that our instrument prototype bares no relationship to the type of criteria involved.
As our project is very much exploratory, it would be best to take a loose informal approach. The following approach suggested by Lui would be best:
*Choose 5 to 6 test subjects, that fit our various user profiles.
*Conduct an informal walkthrough of the prototype, showing it's various functionalities.
*Prepare a number of questions that search for what we need to find out. i.e. How do you feel these functions are an improvement on existing instruments?
*Maintain an informal discussion, dropping subtle hints that keep the feedback on course.
*Don't dwell on information that not important for what we need to know.
*Document techniques, notetaking, dictaphone, video.
*Stay away from questionnaires!
Lui advised that this can be conducted after aug 24th if prototype isn't ready.
She recommended however, that we document, what, why, who and how we want to evaluate.
Thanks Lui
During the course of study, we were mainly focused on evaluating systems with user interfaces, usually GUI's. We knew that the same sort of techniques would not necessarily apply to our project. Before speakimg to Lui we were looking at undertaking a heuristic evaluation (evaluating the prototype with a number of chosen experts, based on set design principle criteria).
Lui advised that Heuristic Evaluation applies essentially to user interfaces, and that our instrument prototype bares no relationship to the type of criteria involved.
As our project is very much exploratory, it would be best to take a loose informal approach. The following approach suggested by Lui would be best:
*Choose 5 to 6 test subjects, that fit our various user profiles.
*Conduct an informal walkthrough of the prototype, showing it's various functionalities.
*Prepare a number of questions that search for what we need to find out. i.e. How do you feel these functions are an improvement on existing instruments?
*Maintain an informal discussion, dropping subtle hints that keep the feedback on course.
*Don't dwell on information that not important for what we need to know.
*Document techniques, notetaking, dictaphone, video.
*Stay away from questionnaires!
Lui advised that this can be conducted after aug 24th if prototype isn't ready.
She recommended however, that we document, what, why, who and how we want to evaluate.
Thanks Lui
Meeting with Annette Aboulafia - Aug 14th
Annette Aboulafia, researcher in the IDC, kindly proof read our draft report for us. Afterwards we met to discuss it.
Annette helped us to clearly define our aims and objectives. Although we know them, it's not always easy to explain them to other people. We also learned that it's important to know the scope of the project. For example, is the prototype a learning device? Answer: No.
In terms of the report, she offered the following suggestions.
*Begin the Introduction chapter with an introductions to the field of study.
*Give a brief description of each project member's background and interests.
*Give an introduction to the research section. i.e. research questions, what we researched and why.
Thanks Annette!
Annette helped us to clearly define our aims and objectives. Although we know them, it's not always easy to explain them to other people. We also learned that it's important to know the scope of the project. For example, is the prototype a learning device? Answer: No.
In terms of the report, she offered the following suggestions.
*Begin the Introduction chapter with an introductions to the field of study.
*Give a brief description of each project member's background and interests.
*Give an introduction to the research section. i.e. research questions, what we researched and why.
Thanks Annette!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
