Arch Robotics coverMy book. MIT Press, 2016


K E Y   R E S O U R C E S :

p r o t o t y p i n g  (link)
what are we designing?
examples
prototype help
materials and where to buy
arduino code & coding
working with the shop (D2FS)

p o s t e r s  &   v i d e o s  (link)
guide: videos, posters, reports

c o u r s e   p o l i c i e s  (link)
my course policies
consent form for this course
DEA/HCD statement

c o u r s e   c u l t u r e  (link)
design culture
class organization
societies, jobs, opportunities

d e s i g n   m e t h o d s  
• ideation methods:
Collage; example how to.
Scenario; example
Storyboard; ex. 1, 2
Morphological Chart; example;         morphological chart worksheet.
WoZ
GIF ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
  by Photoshop
, Figma, Gif Maker.
• user study methods:
Role Playing with a Think Aloud
Observation
Heuristic Evaluation
Survey for UX and Usability (SUS)
• more methods:
Design Guide









 



S T U D E N T   E X A M P L E S
below, from all of my classes, to share with you what I think is excellent work, broadly. The content of these videos and reports may not apply to the specific design challenge for your course. Consider carefully what you need to do for your course in your semester!

Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
haptic desk
[video] [doc]



Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
The Ice Breaker
[video] [doc]


Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
voyager box
[video] [doc]


Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
SIT
[video] [doc]


Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
SoundSoul
[video]



Growbot [video] [pub]
DIS BEST DEMO PAPER

Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
SocialStools
[video]

 

Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
SORT
[video]

 

Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
pheB
[video]

 

Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
Axis
[video] [doc]



Helping Hand
Stellavista [video] [pub]


Haptic Desk Interface for Austism
robotic furnishings
[video] [pub]


 

 

 

Architectural Robotics  
Keith Evan Green, Ph.D.                                   >  w h e e l   o f   n a m e s
                                                                            to select work to review + 2 critics
Mon. and Wed., 8:40 - 9:55am
, HEB 2L32

C O U R S E   D E S C R I P T I O N   |   D E A   6 2 1 0
Embedding robotics into the fabric of the built environment fosters a more interactive and potentially more intimate relationship between the spaces we live in and us, and represents a new frontier for design, computing, and psychology. Part-seminar, part-lab, this course considers the design, technical, social, ecological, and ethical challenges and opportunities of architectural robotics.

P R E R E Q U I S I T E S   |   E N R O L L M E N T
• Enrollment is limited to 15 students to make full use of the D2FS shop and staff.
• Requires professor's permission by email to receive an enrollment code.
• Preference is given to student in my affiliations: majors in DEA, FSAD, MAE, and IS, and students enrolled in the Robotics PhD or Minor.

• This course is for 3 credits, for letter grade only. There is no final exam.
No prior coding or electronics experience is necessary to do well in this course.

S Y L L A B U S    |    S E E   A L S O   M Y   D E A  5 2 1 0    &   D E A   2 7 3 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L E A R N I N G    O U T C O M E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Architectural Robotics
aims to cultivate new vocabularies of design and new, complex realms of understanding towards realizing artifacts and systems responsive to people and the planet. Four learning outcomes are expected of this course.

Outcome 1: To understand the design, technical, social, ecological, and ethical challenges and opportunities of architectural robotics.

Outcome 2: To conceptualize and evaluate design alternatives responsive to the challenges and opportunities of an ecosystem that is biological, artificial, and digital, using a variety of design and evaluation strategies.

Outcome 3: To iteratively design an Architectural Robotic device, furniture, room, building, and/or metropolitan area, manifested as a physical prototype at model scale (for a room, e.g., 1 ft. = 2 inches), and demonstrate an ability to do so in class presentations and a video.

Outcome 4: To demonstrate, in a written report, an ability to communicate the motivations for, iterative development of, and expected use of the Architectural Robotic artifact that was prototyped, as well as assess its shortcomings.

This course is designed to guide you in designing meaningful solutions, while also encouraging exploration of who we are, how we engage with the world, and our place within it.

                     "In order to understand things, we have to build them."
                              – Ruzena Bajcsy, a founder of modern robotics.

H I S T O R Y   O F   T H I S   C O U R S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The pedagogy of this course has been the subject of my paper presented at ICRA (the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation) and my paper published in RAM (IEEE Robotics and Automation, Rethinking the Machines in Which We Live.) I also co-authored, with Mark Gross, an overview of Architectural Robotics for ACM interactions. Required reading for this course, my book, Architectural Robotics: Ecosystems of Bits, Bytes, and Biology (MIT Press), establishes this subfield at the intersection of robotics, (environmental) design, and psychology.

I N T R O D U C T I O N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unlike a conventional building that has a limited range of designed responses to dynamic, changing conditions, architectural robotic environments are intimately bound together with their users and local conditions in a designed performance.

More practically, architectural robotics is defined by the movement of physical mass and by its interactivity with and adaptivity to things outside it (e.g. people, other living things, objects, information).

The prospect of this kind of environment was anticipated some fifty years ago by MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte in his vision of “a man-made environment that responds to and is ‘meaningful’ for him or her” [5]. Wired editor Kevin Kelly later imagined a “world of mutating buildings” and “rooms stuffed with co-evolutionary furniture” [3]. And while Bill Gates envisions “a robot in every home” [2], William Mitchell, the late Dean of MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning and director of its Media Lab, envisioned homes “as robots for living in” [4].

Architectural Robotics meanwhile raises such critical questions as:

  • How will we program the built environment, from furniture to cities?

  • How will architectural robotics recognize activities taking place inside and surrounding them?

  • How will designers design built environment configurations responsive to particular human and ecological conditions?

  • How to design cross-operability and collective interactivity/intelligence of multiple architectural robotic artifacts (furnishings, furniture, rooms, buildings, cities) operating together as cyber-physical “ecosystems”?

  • What are the safety, security and privacy issues related to architectural robotics, and how do designers design architectural robotics to protect property and living things from hackers, operating failures, and other harmful impacts?

Architectural Robotics must go beyond simplistic formal achievements; it must strive to improve life, enhance existing places, and support human interaction. For philosopher Andrew Feenberg, “technology is not simply a means but has become an environment, a way of life” [1]. Architectural Robotics is more than an aesthetic search, a stylistic possibility, or a technological quest; it is, instead, a way to develop new possibilities for dwelling in support of and augmenting people and their surroundings.

References
[1] Feenberg, A. Transforming Technology, (Oxford University Press, 2002), 8.
[2] Gates, B. “A Robot in Every Home,” Scientific American, December 16, 2006.
[3] Kelly, K. Out of Control. (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1994), 472.
[4] Mitchell, W. J. e-topia ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 59.
[5] Negroponte, N. Soft Architecture Machine (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1975).

T H E   P O W E R   O F   A   S M A L L   C L A S S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unlike a large lecture class at Cornell, this small class offers a unique opportunity for meaningful conversation, discovery, and collaboration. Don’t miss out on this chance to engage! To ensure attendance, a sign-in sheet will be available during the first ten minutes of each session. Additionally, a significant portion of your grade will be based on your active participation in collaborative learning and discovery.

R E Q U I R E D    R E A D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Readings for each class meeting are listed in the CLASS SCHEDULE (below). Please read the readings ahead of their assigned class session.

O P T I O N A L    R E A D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Primary sources considered in my book that are especially important:

• Alexander, C., et al. 1977. A Pattern Language (excerpts). Oxford.
• Brooks, R. I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot. The Singularity, IEEE Spectrum, v. 45.
• Dourish, P. 2001. Embodied Interaction. MIT (paper).
• Hayles, N. K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman (excerpt). U. Chicago.
• Negroponte, N. 1975. "Intelligent Environments" in Soft Architecture Machines, MIT.
• McCullough, M. 2004. Digital Ground (excerpts). MIT.
• Pask, G. 1969. The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics. Architectural Design.

C L A S S   O R G A N I Z A T I O N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. I will present the case study of the day.

2. On Mondays, we will consider an assigned reading.

Every student will read the reading listed for each class ahead of that class meeting.

• Every student, beginning Week 02, will upload to our shared Box folder, ahead of that class meeting, a one-page Word document that includes the following for each assigned reading:

[a] Three bullet points that you draw from the reading that capture the content and significance of that reading for architectural robotics.

[b] Two questions related to the reading that you would like us to consider in class.

One student will be assigned one reading for a given class meeting and will present this reading in class. Here is a good example of slides prepared tor a presentation for this course. This presentation should conclude with the presenter sharing with us the most compelling questions submitted by student peers in their reviews found in the shared folder.

3. Students (for assignment 1) and student teams (for assignment 2) will present status reports and demos on their design activities, as per the weekly schedule (below) under the heading, "In class." Your status report can be a physical model, a powerpoint slide, a digital image (e.g., a 3D model), a Word document, or any other document that communicates the status of design development. For demos, you simply share your current physical prototype; or, you can take a smartphone video of your working prototype, upload the video (or a URL to it) to our shared folder, and share the video with us. (Sharing the video is a good approach, as robotics demos often fail!) Reports are uploaded to the shared class folder ahead of class presentations.

About class organization, more broadly, please also review course culture: link.

S C H E D U L E   B Y   W E E K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SHOP TRAINING: We will also do D2FS shop training to learn how to use the basic power tools safely. Please come to this training session with close-toe shoes (no sandals) and something to tie-back long hair if you have long hair!

STUDENT CRITICS: Each class session, two student critics-of-the-day will be selected randomly to offer feedback on developing work from other students or teams. This is a critical aspect of this course: we learn from each other!

METHODS: See top-left of this page for more on the human-centered design methods identified below (e.g., scenarios, ...)

I N T R O  

Week 01 | 01.21 D2FS SHOP TRAINING
In class:
W D2FS shop training (Come dressed with closed shoes. No sandals!)
Readings
W This webpage, top to bottom!

Week 02 | 01.26 INTRO TO THE COURSE; GROVE ARDUINO PROTOTYPING
• In class
M Intro and Rapid-Prototyping with Grove Arduino. > Bring a laptop to class, always!
• Students will get a Grove Kit "bag" and the plastic panels to make a box.
• Intro to Grove: 1, 2; 10 Grove Modules, my slides; download Arduino; explore Grove.

Start Assignment-1: Create an early prototype; limit yourself to materials provided.
W Read together Bruce Mau: An Incomplete Manifesto; continune Grove prototyping.
Case Study:
W
Ori Living; bumblebee; Paper•Mech & Mechanisms

Week 03 | 02.02 SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE
Case Study:

M ARL: Robot Room (and see NASA's LEMUR 3)
W
Hyperbody/TU Delft x2: Pop-Up Apartment and NSA Muscle (video)
Readings:
M
Architectural Robotics: chapter 1 (link to this if you can't get the book in time).
In class:
M Review ideation methods--this page, top-left; write a scenario; prototype with Grove.
W
Exploratory Prototype [5 pts]; upload a phone-video demo.

P A R T - 1   |   C O N C E P T S  

Week 04 | 02.09 PATTERNS - I
Case Study:
M
A walk through Parc Güell
; WOz (e.g. Nest).
W
eva/TODO/Blackboard, Kinetic Wall; Reconfigurable facades.
Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: chapter 2; Alexander, C., et al. 1977. A Pattern Language.

In class:
M Present a scenario and demo; Iterate design with morphological chart worksheet.

W Review morphological charts and demo.

Week 05 | 02.16 PATTERNS - II > NO CLASS MONDAY

In class:
W
DEMO DAY: REFINED PROTOTYPE [DUE IN CLASS. 10 pts].

Week 06 | 02.23 INTERACTIONS
Case Study:
M
W. Ju. Mechanical Ottoman.
W
ARL's MAPLE, a Multi-Agent Prosocial Learning Environment.
Readings:
M
Architectural Robotics: chapter 3.
In class:
M
Screen your developing video.
W VIDEOS & REPORT [15 pts & 5 pts]


Week 07 | 03.02 BODY BUILDING | VIDEOS & REPORTS [due W; 15 pts & 5 pts]
• Case Study:
M
N55 Walking House; Walking City (Archigram, 1964).
W Holger Schnädelbach. ExoBuilding
Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: chapter 5, 8, 11.
In class, view together 2001.
In class:
M Intro Assignment-2; Everyone does a GIF concept for nex class.
W Review GIFs; form teams; meet your team; complete a team charter.

P A R T - 2   |   S C A L E S   &   I M P A C T S 

Week 08 | 03.09 HABIT-ATIONS > NO CLASS MONDAY | Fall Break
Case Study:
W
ARL's Space-Making Robot Surface
In class:
W Progress reports from each team; GUEST: Henriette Bier, TU Delft.

Week 09 | 03.16 WORKSTATIONS
Case Study:
M
AWE; AWE in AR; AWE in interactions; Roomware.
W TU Delft's InteractiveWall.
• Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: ch. 4.
In class:
M Storyboard your design for Assignment-2 (ex. 1, 2).
W EXPLORATORY PROTOTYPE [5 pts]
; peer evaluation; upload phone-vid. demo.

- - - - - - - - - LAST DAY TO DROP/CHANGE GRADE OPTION | 03.16 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Week 10 | 03.23 LIVING ROOMS & FURNISHINGS - I
Case Study:
M
Loop chair.
W
Robotic Self-Healing Chair (shorter video of same); Roombots.
Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: chapter 6.
In class:
M Intro to morphological charts; ex.s 1, 2, and one from class; review revised GIFs.
W Progress reports on design development.

Week 11 | 03.30 SPRING BREAK

Week 12 | 04.06 LIVING ROOMS & FURNISHINGS - IILIVING ROOMS & FURNISHINGS - II
Case Study:
M
ARL: home+; ART; its pneumatic surface.
W
Domestic Transformer (Gary Chang, 2007); Futuristic Kitchen (1970).
Readings:
M
Architectural Robotics: chapter 7.
In class:
M Making videos [my guide]; ex.s: CHI17, CHI18, GrowBot; progress reports.
W Concept Validation Prototype [10 pts]; peer evaluation; upload phone-vid. demo.

Week 13 | 04.13 PORTALS TO ELSEWHERE
Case Study:
M
ARL's LIT ROOM, LIT KIT
W
ARL's pheB, a soft robotic wall for wellbeing in tight confines
Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: chapter 9.
In class:
M Intro to Role Play; progress reports on design development.
W Progress reports on design development.

Week 14 | 04.20 ECOSYSTEMS OF BITS, BYTES, & BIOLOGY
Case Study:
M
IBM TRIRIGA.
W
Futuristic City of Tomorrow; Intel smart city; Experimental City. Google's Quayside, its termination, and lessons learned
Readings:

M
Architectural Robotics: chapter 10.
In class:
M Progress reports on design development.
W Progress reports on design development; Steve Jobs on presenting.

P A R T - 3   |   M O V I N G   &   T H I N K I N G

Week 15 | 04.27 | INTELLIGENT?
M Riding in a Self-Driving Tesla; AI Scorecard.
W John Searle's Chinese Room.
Readings:
M Architectural Robotics: chapter 12.
> Debate: Architectural robotics: When? Where? For whom? Why?
In class:
M Advance final prototypes and supporting documents.
W Advance final prototypes and supporting documents.

Final Class | 12.06 Refined Prototypes, Assignment-2 [10 pts].
M DEMO DAY; complete a peer evaluation; upload a quick phone-video demo.

xx.xx | xxpm | DEADLINE: TEAM REPORT & VIDEO, uploaded for final grading:
Upload on or before this date/time as specified in October by Cornell Registrar. If there is no deadline shown on the Registrar's website, the date shown here is on the late-end of deadlines for Cornell to offer you ample time to complete the assignment.

A S S I G N M E N T S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are two assignments for this course.

The first assignment, undertaken by each student, is intended to be a fast-paced engagement.

The second assignment is undertaken by teams of 2-4 students and provides a longer, deeper development of the design following a trajectory like this:

  • Conceptualization
  • Prototyping / Rapid, low-fidelity
  • Concept Generation: GIF, Scenario, Morphological Chart, Storyboard
  • Prototyping / Hardware/Software
  • User Testing
  • Video making and Reporting
  • Documentation

Team composition for the second assignment will be formed by the instructor(s) based partly on proposals pitched in class by class members.

Keep in mind: this course asks you to develop architectural robotic artifacts that have at least one input and one output which moves physical mass.

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

                 The first image - the "empty room" - in Here by Richard McGuire.

Assignment-1 | An interactive box offering temporal and emotional connectivity.
45% of the course grade; individual effort.

The first assignment will take inspiration from Richard McGuire graphic novel, Here (1989). The book presents the same location in space at different points in time --mostly a living room in a home (this room, empty, is pictured above).

Using the Grove kit you are provided, develop an interactive, physical table, stool, or bench at a model scale that enables or augments one or more of Here's characters, in that room, at a single instance shown in one pair of pages (one image of the room) from Here.

To get us started quickly (while you are waiting for your copy of Here to arrive), use one of the following five instances of the room from the book:

Here, 1933, holding hands and hanging a picture
Here, 1957, trying to remember
Here, 1964, dancing
Here, 2005, with the pull-out bed
Here, 2213, in the future

You will be asked to write a scenario that offers the circumstances (regrets, wishes, gratitude, loss, ...) of the person or people you are designing for, addressing the themes of time, memory, and human connection.

Practically, you will develop an interactive device that offers a minimalist yet expressive way to communicate time, memory, and connection through simple hardware components. The focus here is on using limited hardware and physical materials to create a meaningful interaction between the past and present, whether it’s through gradual transitions, feedback loops, and/or symbolic physical movement.

The kind of artifact you are striving for is small in scale, whimsical/poetic, beautifully fabricated (in hi-fidelity), interactive in simple ways, and meaningful and purposeful. You are encouraged to construct your box enclosure from the corrugated plastic panels provided in class. If you need a different size or shaped corrugated plastic enclosure, or if you wish to cut-out or engrave the surfaces of the panels, or if wish to use MDF or acrylic instead of corrugated plastic, work with our partners in the D2FS on laser-cutting panels to-size from digital files you generate using CaseMaker. In any case, your finished product must not have ink-pen writing or coloring on it, or use craft materials like cotton balls or craft paper; any inscriptions should be subtracted by laser-cutter engraving; color should come from the LED stick provided. You are permitted (and even encouraged) to cut material away from the panels by laser-cutter or mat knife. You may also add on to your box other features that are meticulously fabricated and purposeful. The battery pack provided must go inside your box with all your electronics; design an elegant way for users to recharge the device.

You do not have to generate code on your own: you can select one of the codes provided under the heading below, “Arduino Codes You Can Copy & Paste.” (An effective way to tailor your code to your wants without coding experience is to use ChatGPT as described below.)

             "Design is the process of creating solutions within constraints."
                           – Chris Bangle, former Chief of Design at BMW.

Limit yourself to using only the Grove electronics and box panels provided. Ensure that the battery and all electronics fit inside the box, and that the battery is accessible for recharging. If you diverge from the panels provided, generate your cut-files using CaseMaker and work with the D2FS to have these cut. Don't make the mistake of creating a prototype that is not meticulously designed and fabricated; prototypes that look like craft projects created by a child will be graded accordingly.

Intellectually, your "small" assignment may take inspiration from the boxes of artist Joseph Cornell (one such box is in Cornell's Johnson Museum of Art), the words of Brian Eno (producer of, e.g., Coldplay's "Viva La Vida", ambient music pioneer, and member or the band Roxy Music), and three perspectives on affective computing / designing for emotion:

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

Assignment 2 | "Repairing 'Stellavista' (45% of your grade; team effort)

Read J G Ballard's short story, "The Thousand Dreams of Stellavista" (1962).

Inspired by Ballard's story, design a module 8' wide x10' deep x 8' high that you insert in a hotel room (this one from Marriott for which we have a scale model) that repairs something you discover in Ballard's fictionalized suburban, architectural-robotic dystopia. Essentially, Architectural Robotics that are going wrong in Ballard's story you will make "right" in the space of a 10'x8'x8' module within a Marriott hotel room. Your user/clients are Fay and Howard Talbot, the couple in the story that purchases and moves into a home in Stellavista. Imagine your hotel room as Fay and Howard's place-of-stay while they shop for their new home. Write a paragraph that you insert strategically in Ballard's story that describes this hotel room and how it fosters a better future for Fay and Howard, a couple in distress, amplified by living in their new home.

The starting point for your design is the Robot Room under development in my Architectural Robotics Lab. Imagine that one wall and part of the floor of your prototype will be "covered" with hinging panels as seen in the Robot-Room video. In concept, this robot surface is a strip of paper, folded multiple times across its width to create hinges. Your task is to add two elements to this robotic wall and (partial) floor surface of hinged panels:

• one free-standing robotic furnishing (see, e.g., these robotic furnishings)
• one ceiling system (see, e.g., these robotic surfaces)

The system -- the hinged wall-floor robot + your two elements -- is your design space for best accommodating Howard and Faye. You are welcome to add other more incidental elements as your choose.

The hotel room is this one from Marriott. You can chose any scale for your working prototype. If you wish, you can use the scale model we have in our teaching space, scaled to 1 ft. = 2 inches to match a 12-inch wooden human figures you can purchase, for instance, here ($6.99) that you might use in your videos and documents. You can alternatively print images of people found in Google images and adhere these printed figures to cardboard backing. However, the scale of the model may be too small for you to explore your design.

The prototype should be interactive by way of sensors and actuators that move physical mass, You are encouraged to add lighting and/or sound. You may use the Grove kit for this assignment; you have the option of using any additional means listed above for Assignment 1.

G R A D I N G   /   G R A D I N G   R U B R I C - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please review carefully the Course Policies (link). These policies are not negotiable except under grave circumstances.

Throughout this course—an intimate and intensive “conversation” across students and the professor— students will have ample opportunity to receive feedback on their work. Here is rubric for the two major assignments.

The list that follows names and describes the graded components for this course. Each component is worth so many points, as shown in red type. The sum of all of these components equals the final grade of 100 points. The numerical scale for grading is as follows: A+ (98–100), A (93–97), A- (90–92), B+ (88–89), B (83–87), B- (80–82), C+ (78–79), C (73–77), C- (70–72), D+ (68–69), D (65–67), D- (below 65).

ATTENDANCE + PARTICIPATION | 20 points
DEA 6210 is intentionally designed as a low-enrollment course to foster a dynamic classroom experience centered on discovering together.As a result, each student’s active contribution to this shared exploration is a significant component of the final grade. For a broad description of what constitutes active participation, Review "P1" of the course policies (link). Practically, at the discretion of the instructor and teaching assistant (if any), up to 20 points will be awarded for these criteria:

  • ATTENDANCE taken by the instructor or TA.

  • CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLASS, especially when your work is selected for review in-class, when you are asked to be one of the two "critics-of-the-day" that critique the work of your peers, or you are assigned to present a case study in class.

  • YOUR PEER REVIEW offered anonymously by team members using this form.

You will lose 5 points each time we call on you and you are not present (if you have no approved excuse) or you are otherwise unresponsive, distracted by things on your phone, computer, or in-class conversations unrelated to this course.

ASSIGNMENTS [rubric] | 35 points (A-1) & 45 points (A-2)

  • EXPLORATORY PROTOTYPE [5 points]
    A rough prototype demonstrating early technical feasibility and exploration of design directions. Focus is on getting things moving, sensing, or communicating—however imperfectly—rather than polish or completeness.

  • CONCEPT VALIDATION PROTOTYPE [10 points] for assignment-2 only
    A more refined prototype that clearly demonstrates the core interaction concept. It shows that the main design idea is viable, with key functions working well enough to evaluate and iterate further.

  • REFINED PROTOTYPE [10 points]
    A near-final prototype demonstrating technical completeness and design maturity. Focus is on reliability, usability, and responsiveness to earlier feedback. Should be testable with real users or stakeholders.
  • VIDEO [my guide] [15 points] communicates a full, cohesive story of your designed, interactive artifact, answering why, for whom, where, and for what purpose. Upload to our shared folder an MP4 file reduced to < 30MB using, e.g., Handbrake (see my video guide). In your Documentation, include a URL link to your video uploaded to Vimeo or YouTube. The video will otherwise adhere to the requirements for a Video Showcase submission to the ACM conference, CHI, a benchmark for design research. (Videos from a previous Video Showcase.)

  • REPORT (pdf) [5 points] that includes every aspect listed in my grading rubric. Upload your REPORT to our shared drive as a print quality pdf document. These examples from previous classes are model reports (1, 2, 3, 4) but they may not contain every requirement in my linked grading rubric. My grading rubric offers the most current expectation for documenting your design.