Research —

Weak Signal: Collections

I am fascinated by the ways creativity and taste are related. In the past several years, I’ve noticed a general decrease in the publication of original content and thoughts among my peers, and a much sharper rise in the careful curation of existing content.

An example of this might be the Instagram Feed. A user’s Feed is the 3-wide grid found on their profile. For those more savvy with the platform, the feed operates as a collective unit that speaks clearly of that user’s taste more than any single instance of a photo. The more photos in the feed, the clearer the communication of taste.

All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. — Ira Glass, This American Life

With so much content to consume now, I feel as though there is a certain creativity in the discernment of what to consume. Furthermore, I think someone’s collections speak deeply on how they perceive and see the world, which is actually something quite difficult to communicate, though entirely important for any creative practice, perhaps even more than their skills.

Ultimately, my hypothesis is that a collection can be interpreted as not only a sample of taste, but also a language in itself—a repository of inspiration that can be called upon to explain and clarify obscure concepts. And furthermore, the language becomes the way to think and perceive the world. If designers are hired by these languages, perhaps many good things could follow.

If you think about it abstractly, even the alphabet itself is a collection of letters and phonemes, but it is the platform on which our culture is built.

“Language is the foundation of civilization—it is the glue that holds people together” (excerpt from Arrival)

CMOA Research:

While exploring the idea of collections, I realized that a person’s taste is really comprised of a collection of collections. My love for architectural details tells you only of a single facet of my taste—understanding also which books I read will extend your understanding of me all the more. The more collections you witness, the more accurately you can understand my taste and pattern recognition.

Seeking a solid metaphor on which to build this collection of collections, I thought about forests, gardens, and eventually museums. Museums are special because they are a physical space with many different sections—each one containing a collection of artifacts and pieces. They are very intentionally designed for the best possible experience of gaining an understanding of the culture the museum is trying to portray. Here are some of my insights on how museums are set up:

The first thing I noticed upon entering the first exhibition was the wall of text delineating the details surrounding the collection and the pieces within it. It allowed me to have the proper expectations, which was very helpful in easing any anxieties I might have had.

Each one of the pieces had a specific way of being displayed. They had labels displaying origins and materials used, but I also found that each of them also had a unique frame that would suit the piece. This led me to understand that it matters not just what you show in the collection, but how you show it.

Though there were many pieces on the walls, I noticed that there could be a sub-collection within the larger collection just through certain attributes such as proximity and size.

There were some pieces that were emphasized above others. This was sometimes done with light or by spatial placement.

The separation between collections was interesting, too. Often times, the flooring itself would be different for the different collections, shifting the atmosphere of the environment drastically. I also observed that there were often some transitional elements if the collections were going to be very different.

I would sometimes come across rooms with only a single piece. I was intrigued, and I started to see how it added more to the collective rather than portraying a collection itself.

Museums largely engage only the ocular and spatial senses, while ignoring aroma, audio, tactile and taste for the most part. However, there were some opportunities to engage in some interactions, which were very helpful to the understanding of the piece when necessary.

Hierarchy of Collections:

When studying collections, I realized that there seemed to be different tiers of collections, each one offering more richness than the previous. Ultimately, I wanted to create through my prototype a “dynamic collection system,” where there is a collection of collections, but each item can also be tied to items in other collections, adding a cohesion between all collections. In environments such as museums, we don’t have much of this, as each collection exists almost in isolation, where the connection between them is purely location-based.

Prototyping —

One possible future scenario is that tools will eventually interface so naturally with us that skill will no longer be of value, but taste and creativity will be the primary attributes assessed in any hiring process for creative occupations. If this is the case, we will need a way to demonstrate taste in a clear way. Thus, I am attempting to create a “Museum of Taste” as a metaphor for our own taste.

The current paradigm for hiring is that a portfolio site is the main touchpoint through which to better understand an applicant and their work. These sites do have some trace of collections, but the extent of that is usually just a simple hyperlink.

For this speculative project, I was either thinking of creating a virtual environment to portray the Museum of Taste or creating the “portfolio of the future”. I realized that perhaps they could merge and I can do both.

For the duration of this project, I decided to focus mostly on the onboarding experience, home base, and a single collection.

Onboarding:

I decided that the onboarding was a necessary experience from my visits to the museum. It prevents visitors from being overwhelmed and grounds them in proper and controlled expectations.

Honestly, I didn’t put too much thought into this. The main points I wanted to get across were the purpose of this museum environment as well as the navigation paradigm. I wanted to explain a bit about the information architecture of the collections in the museum, but that is still to be fully determined.

Home Base:

This framework is also relatively simple. In most complex environments, you will have a central hub through which you can access more specific rooms. Think about a train station, for example. I figured it would be convenient to have a central hub you can access at any given time, where you can enter any of my predetermined collections.

Collection Example:

There are several components to a specific collection. One is the environment it exists in. I think the background of each collection could be an excellent indicator to the actual environment in which this collection might live, either physically or digitally. There might be a cohesion formed through the place in which some things exist.

I realized that there could be more thought in the way these books are arranged. Instead of a static grid floating in space, they could be more engaged with the environment, and be more a part of it.

The last thing is the description/ informational side. Each item has a brief annotation/commentary on its significance, and furthermore has other related items in other collections. I think this is important because suddenly, multiple collections become connected more deeply, further realizing my earlier point about a “dynamic collection system.”

Presentation —

No matter how thoughtful the process, a design project is only as good as the delivery of its communication. For class, the deliverable for this project was a 5-minute presentation, which meant that I definitely could not portray the full extent of my design process.

For my presentation, I focused primarily on two limitations of current portfolios: that they are largely unnecessarily reductionist and that they don’t acknowledge our trajectories into the future. I talked about how designers are not just floating points, but rather vectors, and that our direction can be mapped qualitatively by a portrayal of our taste. I talked about how gardens or museums might be good metaphors/ foundations upon which I can build my interface. Then I showed a demo to solidify my claims and give a concrete mental image of what the interface/ experience might be like.

Lessons Learned / Future Directions —

I had a very difficult time during this project to arrive at the correct scope and channel through which to portray my thoughts and ideas. I had a rich and enjoyable time talking to my professor about these concepts on a high-level, but converting those thoughts into a tangible experience was challenging. I hope that in the future, I can come to more concrete decisions more quickly, so I can have more time to iterate and experiment with how those ideas manifest.

I also hoped to have a much higher fidelity of a prototype, as I do believe my blocky and repetitive forms might deter the level of legitimacy of the presentation. During the presentations, I appreciated when people were able to frame their projects in the context that it was given, and prepare their prototypes to look and behave like a real thing.

Ultimately, I had a great time with this project and I believe that I now understand more deeply how I can think about and communicate visions of the future with greater clarity.

Beginning Thoughts

In 2007, the first iPhone was released with iOS 1. This operating system came with something called the Home Screen.

In a time where smartphone usage is at an all-time high, I thought it would be interesting to comprehend how people design their phone home screens, and how that relates to the usage of the phones.

It would also be interesting to further understand any correlations between the home screen setup and the desktop screens on computers.

As you can see by this past week’s statistics, the screen time on my phone has been used differently for different apps.

My home screen architecture does not remind me of this distribution. Why is that?

Navigating the Home —

Swipes, Taps and Search from the base home.

How to Research —

These are some of the questions I had during my research considerations.

Morning phone routine?

Should I study the friction between a phone setup and the navigation?

Does setup even impact usage in any way?

• Trying to use something less
• Trying to make frequent apps more accessible.

Where is the logic in the setup process? (There is no apparent logic or intelligence involved other than the system default)

• Some people organize by color.
• Some people categorize.

Some of my friends can access their most used apps with their eyes closed. What does this mean?

• It might imply that the setup doesn’t matter as much as expected?

Interesting because the first download is seemingly the only opportunity to really change the positioning the item.

Do the heuristics that guide the environment setup translate to the usage of the home itself?

Dock is the structure. Spotlight is the service. There is shear between the two. In the laptop environment, there are shearing layers between the dock and the spotlight search.

How will the iPhone home service change over time? (Conversational UI? Brain UI?)

Going to an app and not realizing why is similar to entering a room in a home and forgetting why you went there.

Metaphor: Home as Home? What does this highlight/ hide? What truth does this tell?

Could I make a xy plot on organizational chaos vs. purpose of phone.

Herbert Simon—decisions made not on optimum, but first functional model.

Conducting Research —

For my research, I interviewed 10 different people and collected ~20 phone screenshots.

Interviews

For each of my interviews, I asked about the organizational logic/ heuristic behind the home screen of the owner, as well as the navigational heuristics. I asked about the frequency of reorganization, deletion and downloading of apps. I asked about how long they have had their devices, and how long their heuristics were active for. Sometimes, I asked them to draw from memory their setups.

I also did an exercise/ test for each person where they had to navigate to several apps of my choosing whilst having their eyes closed. This tested spatial memory for apps of different levels of usage.

Screenshots

The screenshots were supplements to help me identify stronger patterns between organizational logic/ heuristics.

Insights —

1. For apps of frequent usage (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc.), the organizational heuristics did not matter after a short amount of time, as the frequency of use resulted in a highly accurate spatial memory anyways.
2. For apps of infrequent usage, heuristics were useful for long spans of time.
3. Many people were fine with having a chaotic home screen, as they were only seen by themselves. This is different than a home, where we often clean for the sake of others.
4. There seem to be four main camps for organizational heuristic: categories, color, loose spatial organization, and total chaos.
5. There seem to be two navigational heuristics: tap to access, and search to access. In my interviews, Siri is never used to access apps.

Time frame: 2 weeks.

This is still incomplete!

Problem Space —

As a designer, effectively communicating your work is critical. To assess the quality of a design, one must receive a fundamentally accurate communication. Therefore, the communication of the project itself must be carefully crafted.

In the context of communication design and product design (digital and physical), communicating a design seems more 1:1, for they can be experienced in their own medium and at the scale they were designed for — posters can be printed, forms can be handcrafted.

However, when designing futures, services or environments, where scale is significantly larger, it can be challenging to give an accurate communication. With environments, many things must be communicated at once: scale, spatial layouts, spatial interactions, environmental typography, etc. Without experiencing the space itself, it is a more difficult jump to understand the design.

Is this a real problem?

Identifying the correct framing for this problem space.

It is difficult to know with certainty whether this limitation that I experience comes from my lack in skill of using existing communication paradigms, or if the paradigms themselves are limited in their capacity to communicate effectively. Given the time frame, I was only able to recall past experiences and collect sentiments from my friends and faculty within the School of Design and in the School of Architecture.

Recently, my class had a critique session and invited several students trained in Communication Design. However, we found that after every presentation, the questions that were asked were primarily clarification questions, rather than questions on the decisions made. To me this seems like an indicator that the presentation was not communicative enough for the students critiquing to have enough confidence to give feedback.

In my experience, there have also been times when my professors can see far deeper into a model/ drawing to instantly know if the space will feel too tight or disproportionate, while I could have never recognized that problem. While it is very helpful in the moment, this phenomena indicates to me the idea that there is a spectrum of levels to which one can “think in 3D.” To see a 2D abstraction of a 3D space and deeply understand the feeling of the space is a skill that not many people possess, and it would be irresponsible for designers to assume that everyone does, especially in high stakes situations.

Communication Frameworks —

Some simple models to understand communication.

To discuss how to design communication, we must understand how communication itself works, and the language through which to discuss it. I’ve researched and compiled some well-respected models:

Model 1: Linear Communication

This framework consists of a Sender encoding a Message through a Channel to the Receiver. Let me break down each of these components.

Sender:

Message:

Channel:

Receiver:

Model 2: Interactive/ Convergent Communication

Essentially, this model is the same as the Linear Model, with one added detail: the feedback of the receiver upon receipt of the message.

Feedback:

Current Paradigms —

The current methods for communicating large 3D spaces.

There are several methods that designers and architects use to communicate 3D space. To compare these methods, I have framed them by the abstractions they make, the information they highlight, and the information they hide. When depicting these paradigms, it is assumed that they are produced at the highest fidelity.

2D Maps

Perhaps the most common understanding of a large 3D space is a 2D map. It is a paradigm used by most navigational tools, meaning that it is likely to be easily understood by most people.

Abstractions:

There are two important abstractions made in this communication: space as graphic and person as pinpoint.

Space as graphic is an abstraction where the dynamic 3D environment surrounding us is abstracted as a collection of flat shapes and lines. An assumption I am making is that most people are comfortable with this abstraction, because most navigation products use this visualization as the primary platform. Sometimes these graphics are replaced by arial photographs, which are one less step of abstraction.

Person as pinpoint is an interesting abstraction, because it reduces human complexity to it’s core relevant details: the position and orientation. With this reduction, we are able to understand the important information at a glance. Once again, I think this abstraction can be assumed to be fairly easily understood.

Information Highlighted:

• Size of space in relation to other things
• Position of person in space
• Orientation of person in space

Information Hidden:

• Dimensionality
• Feeling of the space
• Visual of the space

Photo Montages

A photo montage is a photograph with a perspective-matched model layered on top. This method relies on comparisons of scale between recognizable objects such as people and cars. This practice is used a lot, especially within architecture.

Abstractions:

Photo as Reality is the abstraction employed by this method. This is an easy abstraction for many people to make because of how ubiquitous the photographic medium is in our society.

Information Highlighted:

• Gives a good estimate of scale.
• Has some dimensionality

Information Hidden:

• Different angles of the space
• Feeling of the space

Scale Models

Scale models are built as a physical object to represent a much larger space. They are often accompanied with an appropriately sized figurine, to give a sense of relative scale. Like most tools, these models have to be made with a high fidelity to really be communicative.

Abstractions:

Information Highlighted:

• Physicality affords dimensional and aesthetic qualities.
• Essence and feeling can be communicated better.
• Material qualities can be represented.

Information Hidden:

• Context surrounding the space.
• Real scale of the model

Presentations

Presentations surrounding spaces contains interesting implications.

Information Highlighted:

Information Hidden:

Virtual Reality

Architecture firms are starting to use VR to communicate their designed spaces. This platform allows people to access their organic spatial exploration tools (stereoscopic vision and head moving) to understand a 3D rendering created computationally. VR is a highly immersive experience that affords greater believability—the 3D digital model can be crafted to feel almost photo-realistic.

Abstractions:

Virtual Reality as Reality is the primary abstraction made with VR. One has to look at the Virtual world and pretend that it is real life. This is easier if the fidelity of the 3D world is high.

Information Highlighted:

• Real scale of the space in relation to the viewer.
• Feeling of the space
• Motion
• The full space is explorable

Information Hidden:

• Tangible materiality of the design.

Limitations:

• VR is an inherently isolating experience, as it happens alone.
• The quality of a VR experience depends heavily on the quality of the 3D environment. 3D environments can be very difficult to create well.
• Motion Sickness is a serious issue for this platform.

New Paradigm —

My proposed framework for communicating spaces.

“Evidence that bears on questions of any complexity typically involves multiple forms of discourse.”

—Edward Tufte, Beautiful Evidence

In his book Beautiful Evidence, Edward Tufte discusses how concurrent streams of information are often necessary to communicate complex ideas.

Much like how most communication tools use image, text, symbols to explain a complicated idea, I imagine a system that uses multiple platforms through which people can experience the designed space at different levels of scale and immersion.

[Visual representation of the system]

2D Desktop Projection

The projection has 3 parts: the drone footage, the scale model, and the pinpoint.

Drone Footage

I chose to use drone footage as a contextual anchor. People seem to inherently understand scale and size in relation to other recognizable objects, and the use of cars and people would hopefully offer that relationship. Because drone footage is image-based, it would require less abstraction, so less friction to understand.

I had considered projecting the footage on the ground, but I realized that this felt oddly eerie, and resulted in a behavior where people would enjoy stepping on the cars and people in the video. This helped me decide to place it on a table top.

Scale Model

A big question during this project was whether I should have a scale model as part of my system. Though it might communicate the dimensionality of the design better, it introduces friction when materials and fidelities clash. Also, it would mess up the projection itself.

Pinpoint

As I mentioned during my research on 2D maps, the pinpoint is an abstraction that many people can easily identify and acquire information from. It conveys position and orientation clearly, which is important when looking at the view of someone exploring that space in VR.

Virtual Reality

The VR experience has 2 parts: the headset view and the audience view.

I chose VR as the other major platform for its capacity to ideally give a 0.9:1 experience of the space. This is one of the only methods to truly experience the scale of a space except for building the actual thing.

Headset View

The user in the headset has full control over what they can see. They can use their heads and eyes to look around, and they can navigate around the space by themselves.

Audience View

The audience essentially sees what the headset user sees. It would look something like this:

Application: the Balance

A system is only as effective as how each node interacts with the next.

Spatial Layout

Because I am trying to create a paradigm for communicating 3D space, the setup itself must reflect the system well. I had to consider the switching between views, as concurrent information streams are only effective if they can be received concurrently. Because of this, I decided on this layout.

The screen showing the VR audience view would be stationed right on top of the projection, allowing the view to transition between them easily. The VR view is somewhat isolated, and can exist anywhere.

Scenario

I imagine this system coming alive in a situation such as a client presentation. This kind of tool can be used to present spatially, much as a tour guide might. Perhaps the presenter would start by entering the Virtual Reality environment while the audience watches what they see and where they are. As the presenter highlights different aspects of the space, different members of the audience might be interested in different aspects, and now have a greater ground on which to stand and question, pushing the design forward.

Lessons Learned and Future Steps —

Balancing Platforms in 3D: Design Systems

When concurrently displaying multiple streams of information, it is important to have a consistent visual language, a standard fidelity. I started to realize that because my projected environment (the drone footage) was image-based, while my VR camera was model-based, resulting in friction in understanding.

This helped me understand the importance of design systems and style guides. I had been learning about how large companies keep their various products visually consistent through these central systems, and this project helped me understand how that is visible in 3D experiences as well. Having a consistent 3D visual experience across the board is perhaps better than having the best version of each part, with the friction their differences cause.

Layering Information on the VR experience

As a first prototype, the VR experience does not have much interface within it, just the pure visual experience. However, I would be interested in exploring the idea of a “3D Keynote,” or a series of informational points oriented in context within the 3D model. Perhaps there is a drawing functionality where notes could be left at different points within the model itself.

External Control over VR View

Currently, the VR user controls where the pinpoint lands, but I would be interested to see the effect when one could control the viewing angle based on the projection itself.

Greater Physical Presence

Perhaps I want to showcase the materials portrayed in the VR experience. I would be interested to see how this could manifest in the project.

Communicating the Intangible was originally published in AR/VR Journey: Augmented & Virtual Reality Magazine on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Part 1 — Research & Creative Brief

During Part 1, I worked with Anna Gusman to gather appropriate research and context regarding our client, GoPro. Our research was broken up into 5 sections: Background, Audience, Brand Essence, New Context, and Project Objectives.

Background—

This section primarily focused on understanding GoPro’s current products, market influence and competition. We discerned that GoPro’s market influence spans across several categories, and found that there were many competitors in each of those areas.

Audience—

In order to design for GoPro, we needed to identify the target audience that GoPro was trying to reach. Qualitatively, we noticed that much of their social media output was targeted towards adventurous youth and young adults, and speaks much less to those outside of that group. However, our quantitative research led us to believe that it was also highly targeted towards parents to buy these products for their children.

Brand Essence—

We primarily researched the brand essence from GoPro’s outward image and language on social media. They have a large presence on various platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo, Instagram, and Twitter. This allowed us to discern that GoPro was promoting a high-energy adventurous lifestyle. This lifestyle is very clear, but we noticed that it seemed to be at a scale that often seems unapproachable to some people. It seemed as though you needed to be a certain type of person to deserve the product.

Project Objectives—

During this section, Anna and I outlined exactly were our insights and the goals we wanted to accomplish with this space we would end up designing. We determined several key insights in order to guide us moving forward:

Full Deck—

Part 2—Retail Design

In this part of the project, I worked alone to conceptualize and design a full retail experience for GoPro, in the context of a traveling pop-up shop. This would be a project considering the entire customer journey and a test to see how we can weave the brand language and past research to inform our design process.

Site Selection—

I chose Schenley Plaza for my spot. Since GoPro’s primary audience are within the college student umbrella, Schenley Plaza would be good, as it would have traffic from both Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh.

Form Studies—

Our initial progress took the form of creating forms in a way that we could understand space at a greater capacity. We used the 1/2" : 1' scale.

Environment Development—

The gradual development of the form caused me to ask a lot of questions. I tried to consistently think about the customer side of things, and have more of an intentional process than a “why not” approach.

When considering the GoPro brand and what would be a meaningful experience that I want the customers to have, I considered my own experiences with the product. I have had a GoPro for around 4 years now, and I love the usability of the product. However, a large flaw with GoPro is that the usability of its products is not portrayed before buying it. I believe a retail/ physical space could bring this tangibility, and should.

Because of this realization, I wanted the primary element of my space to be using the product itself, and secondary would be to learn about the company and its products. I thought it would be interesting to have a space designed for a fun, filmable experience, such as a slide or a trampoline.

I initially had a user journey in which someone would enter the store, participate and film an activity, edit it, and leave. However, I had a hard time combining product placement and the activity to a well flowing environment.

I realized that the exterior-interior relationship was quite dysfunctional, as I didn’t want people to be coming in and out of a space for a single interaction; it should be either fully inside or fully outside. I went for fully outside first:

For my forms, I’ve tried to focus on what the key interaction might look like. I’ve established a style where there exists a key adventure, and the space surrounding it is using it to understand GoPro better. By focusing on the GoPro filming interaction, the brand can be known at a greater capacity.

I drew inspiration from a ball pit, and decided a large scale ball pit was a good interaction for people to be drawn towards and want to play at.

I started to realize that this form affords visibility from only one side—Forbes. Since Schenley Plaza itself is a large resting spot, I realized that having a wall on the back side would be an alienating design decision, no matter what I put on that wall. If this fun interaction could be seen from both sides, I would be attracting twice the people. This lead me to my next model.

This had too little space for the onboarding and exiting areas, and thus I expanded the space to have more room for content.

Graphics Development—

Since I spent most of my time deciding on the form and interactions, I did not have much time to flesh out the branding and graphical elements. However, I did want to have the graphics represent the step-by-step process of filming with a GoPro. At first, I had broken down the process into four steps:

However, looking at GoPro’s branding and existing language, I found that this graphic was too bland, and the text too boring.

I eventually revised the language to say “Set. Shoot. Share. It’s that easy.”

Inside, there will be several walls and a screen. The onboarding process has a wall portraying the premise of the space:

I also envisioned the onboarding area to also have a screen on the back wall, showcasing videos that match more with the idea of “everyday adventures.” This would include family videos and video blog content.

Prompt—

Preserve something over 1000 years.

I received this prompt by understanding that more than the preservation of a tangible thing over this period of time, I had to understand the value of this entity to humanity, not just to myself, and figure out a way to maintain the need for that value throughout time.

What I am Preserving—

I will be preserving a story. In preservation, there are many parameters that I could focus on, and many directions it could go. Am I preserving the original form or augmenting it for other purposes? What purposes? Why do I want to preserve this story?

Case Studies — Religious Texts

In my initial research on the preservation of literature takes place with the religious texts of Christianity and Islam. With texts as important as these, I was certain that there would be richness and thought in the ways that they have been preserved over years.

The Preservation of the Quran—

After talking to several people at the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, I found that the present form of the Quran is accepted by Muslim scholars to be the original version that was compiled by Abu Bakr in 638 A.D. Having been originally written in Arabic, the subtle meanings of the text are imbued in the language it was written in. For this reason, a vast number of people set out to learn the language of Arabic just to experience the Quran.

“Any translation of the Quran can only be considered an approximation of the meaning of the Quran.”

— Monthly Crescent

The Preservation of the Bible—

While the Quran has been preserved by strictly scandalizing any change or translations, the full Bible has been translated to 636 and the New Testament translated to 1442 languages. In addition, several languages offer multiple translations for clarity of reading. There is also a fundamental belief in Christianity that even if the text is imperfect, God will still use it to develop some understanding anyways.

One example of translation being lost is in the translation of love in the Bible. In Greek, there are several ways (Eros, Phileo, Agape) of describing love that has been smushed together into one term in the English translations.

What is the process like when translating the Bible?

Case Studies—Oral vs. Written Language

Oral language and written language convey meaning in different ways.

Written language is imbued with meaning with the use of structure and rhetoric. There is a great advantage with writing in that the writer gets much more time to think out their words to communicate most effectively.

Oral language is a human experience. The meaning is stored in the tone, tempo, articulation, etc. of the speaker. If the audience is face-to-face, even better. The communication of a person passionate about the subject matter (the author, with any luck) can be a very rich resource.

Questions—

I am certain that the language of the future will not be the same language we speak today, or the same language as the book I am preserving. It will likewise not have the same value systems or presumptions that the readers/ author did at the time of publication. That being said, how can I devise a system that both retains the semantics of a text while also retaining the readability? Are these elements even the most important when preserving a story?

In an extreme case current-day, can I portray the full extent of thoughtful prose of Shakespeare with just emojis?

My first thought is no. Not in the way that the author originally intended. But where is the medium between the two?

Building Culture Around a Story—

More so than just a translation of words, I believe that the preservation of a story should happen in a more systematic way. The very act of reading/ receiving the story might have to be shifted. I personally think the issue of preservation is much more than the story’s readability/ accessibility.

I consider the story of Jesus, the story in the Bible, to be one of the most well-preserved stories of all time. How did this happen? Plainly spoken, there was a religion built around the story. Abstracted one level, there was a culture associated with and built on that story. The story was the generative foundation of many practices, relationships, and even more stories.

If we were to create a culture for a specific story, one in which people can come together to become immersed with the story and with each other through the story, the preservation of the story would be far more likely to take place.

This is Pottermore, an online platform for fans of Harry Potter to further interact with the story — learn more about characters, and even imagine how it would be if they were in the stories (what house they would be sorted in, what wand they would receive, etc.)

The beauty of Pottermore is that it is regulated and often moderated by the author herself, J.K. Rowling. There is an authenticity to the platform that cannot be fully replicated by extensive platforms such as the realm of fan fiction.

Proposed System—

There are so many platforms and methods for readers to relate and reflect upon a given story that it would be a shame to limit them. Much like Pottermore, I am proposing that stories should be preserved by the cultures that are built around them. Fandom is a powerful thing, that if tapped in the right way, can be very productive and reflectively insightful.

With the universes built by these stories, there should be mediums set in place for people to travel to these lands, play with the fabric of the timeline, and even imagine themselves in these stories. They could partake in the practices created by these stories to build greater empathy, and maybe extend the story even further.

The ultimate end product is a curated and continually growing repository of the aggregate contributions by the fanbase to the universe/ storyline set up by a base-story. This is all for the purpose of the ability to pursue new insights and revelations through storytelling.

In a world where transcontinental travel is becoming much faster and accessible, it makes sense that there should be a physical location for these ports. I believe Universal Studio’s Diagon Alley is a fantastic example of what these environments can look like. In this case, this environment is an immersive tourist location, but it could be so much more if it were a readily accessible and open space.

Final Research and Proposal—

As a continuation of the last project, Bernie and I decided to continue with our explorations with the robot arm.

Inspirations —

In cinematography, a well-operated robot-arm is the holy grail. A robot arm is able to have extreme precision positionally and kinetically. With this control, clips that would otherwise require great maneuvers and hundreds of takes are possible. However, these robot-arm setups are usually only available/ primarily used for high-budget commercials and movies. Naturally, having access to a miniature arm, I decided to stick a camera on there and see what I could film.

Inspirations —

My partner and I were very interested in creating a tool for computationally controlling the focus of a camera, so that we would be able to recreate this effect in vastly different situations.

First Iterations —

Our first ideas had to do with a follow-focus rig. We 3D printed some parts that would fit onto our focus ring, and another gear that would be servo-controlled through Arduino. However, before we got a chance to truly assemble it, our professor informed us of some new cameras that could be controlled by Arduino.

Final Setup —

For this setup, we had several items operating on the same timeline. At any given point, we were controlling the camera focus, robot arm position, and LED color.

This user interface allowed me to operate many values in the same timeline. Being able to operate everything in tandem allows us to fine-tune micro events to occur exactly when we want them to.

By varying the focus, we are able to achieve a greater dispersed light; this means dimmer light intensity and greater width.

To get the effect of a streak that maintains its previous positions, I used the Echo effect in After Effects. This feature allows the video to copy and display a selected number of previous frames. I can change the blend mode, rate of echo dissipation, brightness.

Test Footage —

Final Footage —

This project is a collaboration with Marisa Lu. You can find her process here.

The Nature of Lines and Waiting—

This is an example that I have personally witnessed that provides this sense of stimulation during time that would be spent waiting (in this case, waiting for food). The act of cooking is embraced as a performance rather than something that happens behind closed doors.

Visualization of Time—

What did we want to visualize?

• How does an environment change the perceived time of wait, compared to the actual time of wait?
• How can we visualize change over very long period of time?
• How far can we push an abstraction of time?

Echo Effect —

There is an idea that our ability to sense time is highly correlated to our ability to perceive change. If there is some way of methodically visualizing the change that happens in daily interactions, that would demonstrate a different aspect of time.

This video is an example/demo of that visualization. I chose to edit the clip so that people are only visible in the areas that they spend a decent amount of time in. If they are simply walking through, they would essentially disappear. This is a sort-of “organic opacity effect.”

This is an applied version of this effect in space. As I took these videos and edited them, I realized that the streaks have no significance on their own unless they are viewed from a higher/different angle. I cannot really understand where these people are stopping from this visualization, but if viewed from a higher vantage point, I can imagine how the streaks would carry more meaning.

Animated Lines—

One step further in the road of abstraction, we decided to use animated lines through a 3D depiction of the space, detailing how people waited for their food.

I realize now that I really need to figure out exactly what they do while waiting for food or waiting to order. Based on these, how do their perceived time form certain patterns?

3D Interactive Visualization—

Taking another leap in levels of abstraction, the following interactive graph is an attempt to portray many parameters—culminating to demonstrate how they portray perceived time vs. actual time.

This visualization demonstrates the relationship between certain actions/ pinpoints and their respective values for perceived time. However, we acknowledged that this visualization, though rich with data, was too abstract and we decided to not use it as anything more than a experiment/ tool, instead of a fully fledged video.

First Feedback/ Critique—

My partner and I were too ambitious in the things we were trying to communicate. We wanted to convey so much data with so little time, so our visualizations became far too confusing. Though the content was trying to convey something good, our communication was too farfetched. We decided to learn from the experience, and start the video from scratch.

Video Two—

We decided to have a video + animation + voiceover combination for our video. We decided to have simpler graphics, with concise words to explain the concepts. The actual clips would back up the information and give context/ proof. Everything had to work in concert with each other to get a singular point across.

Many problems came in the realm of script-making, as we struggled to get the perfect words to describe our semi-complex ideas. We also struggled to make our bold claims believable, and we had to inject a lot of other videos and timelapses to give a sense of legitimate research.

Here is the script.

Final Video —

Insights on Space—

What do these visualizations actually tell us about the space? How does what we know already further inform these visualizations?

The framework that we ended up using had to do with the visible changes people observe that contributes to their experience of time. Of course this is a limited way of thinking about the psychology of waiting, but that simplicity afforded us the concrete parameters we used in the video: the time indicators.

I learned through this project that I need to set my parameters early, because there are an indeterminate number of facets describing any thing (especially something as broad as time), ambiguity can be a huge time-waster.

Idea Generation —

[Insert photo of sketchbook]

The idea for this project came from this obsession of using light to capture a space. I had tried steel wool photography once before, but obviously I did not want to do the same thing—I wanted to expand the technique. These are a few of the initial ideas I had at the beginning, which would map objects, spaces, and even movement through a space.

First Iteration —

This is your standard steel wool photograph. I noticed that if the spinner does not move, the sparks would hit a very thin slice of the tunnel and highlight the edges, by ricocheting off of it. However, I also noticed that higher tunnels had a lighter highlight at the high points.

This was the first technique. This is just a simple stack of multiple photos taken from the same position. These photos were just different steel wool photos taken at relatively equal spatial intervals.

This was another idea that I had. By hitting a specific object with these sparks, one would ideally map the object based on the reflections of the sparks off the surface of this item, but it did not turn out the way I wanted it to—it was too random and non-procedural. Also, it seemed too artistic and abstract rather than a concrete mapping. Such is the nature of experimentation, and I am not regretful for this failed experiment.

Reflections after First Iteration —

1. I need to use a stable tripod. This is key.
2. Bring a flashlight. Also key.
3. Work large scale, where the spark frequency and thickness won’t matter.
4. Use a shutter remote.
5. The circle is distracting. Get rid of it, or lighten it.

Second Iteration —

For this process, I went to a smaller tunnel, where the slices would show up more clearly. I was consistently equidistant from the perpendicular plane, and we would move forward a set interval until we hit the end of the tunnel.

[Show diagram?]

After getting all the clips, I tried to lay out the clips in an accurate tunnel, based on the width of the tunnel and the intervals of this tunnel in space. I then created a camera path that would reflect the space well.

Final Deliverable—

Final Thoughts —

I would do a few things differently here:

1. I would try to play with the threshold when determining the alpha channel, so that I don’t have strange haloing.
2. I would try to import this in some sort of interactive or more interesting space, or perhaps a series of interesting/ unconventional spaces.
3. I think a longer video would be good.
4. I would be interested in introducing a Virtual Reality space where one could explore the space as well.

In Class—

These are some maps that were shown to us during class. Through them I was able to understand the extent to which space can be abstracted representationally. I think the London Underground was particularly interesting to me, for it to me seems so intuitive and informative.

During class, I was introduced to the idea of surveying. This involved being shown different surveying tools, and understanding how to accomplish various tasks in an indirect method(ex. determining circumference of the world without having to walk around the world).

We did an activity during class in which we took different sections of the Carnegie Mellon campus, both in 50x and 100x scale, and pieced them to complete a complete map.

From this activity, I started to understand the idea of the representation of large scale. Seeing the two different maps helped me understand the true dissonance between myself in relation to the actual space. I initially had a very difficult time adjusting to this birds-eye perspective of a space. However, once adjusted, it made sense to me, and I was able to quickly locate different buildings and routes to those buildings.

After building those maps, our class went outdoors to actually try to understand what 2 inches on a map can represent in real life (191 feet). I started thinking about the different measurements we as people use to determine distance (number of steps, time taken to walk, time taken to run, number of songs). It made me realize how distanced I was from understanding physical distance in its original format.

During class, we had a re-introduction to microscopes. Our class became very familiar with the all the ways to operate the microscope, as well as how to create our own slides to view.

Another cool demonstration was the use of drop lenses stuck to our cell phone cameras. This was to me a very powerful tool, for it is taking a tool we use on a daily basis, and transforming/ augmenting it into a powerful scientific viewing tool.

During class time, we started trying to understand the methods of surveying using the tools we had created. We split off into teams of four, and took turns sighting, drawing, measuring, and holding the ranging pole.

We split off into two groups and surveyed two different sections of Carnegie Mellon University. This exercise helped us understand and learn to overcome problems regarding elevation, blocked points, and working as a team to survey.

____________________

Scanning Electron Microscopy—

Along with Environments Studio, I am currently taking a class called Experimental Capture with prof. Golan Levin. Through him I had the absolute privilege of visiting the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Biologic Imaging to use their Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). I was astounded by the whole new world I got to see through these images—it seemed completely different from the original sample. This experience helped me to understand this idea of relativity in terms of scale. If we can scale infinitely down and up, how are we to find any sort of meaning in our current scale? The only special thing about is that it is the scale most of us perceive the world. This is a humbling realization. One lasting thought was that when looking far enough into the night sky, I am often able to find extreme beauty, and this experience was the first time I witnessed that same beauty, in the opposite direction.

Funnily enough, I was reminded of the book Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Suess, purely because I felt like I was seeing a whole new world that I could never have seen or perceived without extraordinary equipment.

These are the images that I took:

____________________

Alidade—

I had initially used SolidWorks for my 3D modeling, but I switched over to Fusion 360 because of its compatibility with my laptop computer. The transition was relatively simple because it uses a somewhat similar sketch-feature system. To create my alidade end pieces, I realized that I wanted to make sure I got the plug part perfectly press-fit before printing the entire piece, so I started with just an extruded shape that would fit in the opening.

____________________

Surveying the Land—

Microscopy—

In my free time, I decided to take shavings of things that have personal value to me, and view them under a microscope. I took writing samples, pieces of my wallet, and watch strap. These, to me, are already small objects in my human scale, but seeing them so closely revealed to me how complex they actually were.

I think that my understanding of these objects absolutely hinges on the scale I choose to represent them in. I suppose some architects inspired by naturally occurring patterns only visible under a microscope would represent these microorganisms in a much larger scale than I would. This makes me think that there are so many different choices in scale that one can truly choose from.

Here are some of the things I viewed:

____________________

Simulating the Big-Small Object—

I decided to use photogrammetry and Unity to create a real space that contains my object in the proper scale. My idea is to eventually use Cardboard to display the environment, so that I can consolidate it better to real life.

I first started by modeling the structure in SolidWorks. I chose to do a deeper study on small pieces of seaweed seasoning, because of its interesting variations and look.

I then took various pictures all around the field I surveyed, so that I would have enough data to use photogrammetry:

After that, I exported this file from PhotoScanPro, and imported it and the object into Unity, and made a cohesive environment.

Microscope Studies—

I spent a final round studying different samples, and I decided to model and study the structure of potato skin. I made a setup that would allow my camera to take pictures through the microscope. By panning the slide table periodically, I was able to create a panoramic image.

Model Making—

Instead of making the seaweed, which was a little bit too random for me, I decided to go with the potato skin that I had photographed. I was interested by the pattern formed by the cells—particularly for the way they intersect with each other, and their subtle differences in size.

I had several stages of modeling. Since I was not familiar with 3D software save SolidWorks, I tried my hand at software such as Fusion 360, Rhinoceros, Grasshopper, but I ended up using Cinema 4D to create my form.

Basically, I created soft bodies in the shape of spheres of different sizes. They would all collide and warp together, and that would become my mesh. Gautam helped me quite a bit during this phase in understanding how to make the collider bodies and soft bodies, how to intersect bodies, and how to prepare for 3D Printing.

Working in Cinema 4D was very challenging. I faced obstacles such as not being able to export the file, not having the right level of firmness in my soft bodies, the bodies not staying inside the collider body, and the solving taking far too long. However, Gautam Bose helped me a great deal with all of these issues, and we were able to work out a solution.

Making the Architectural Scale Model—

For most of our measuring, because we could not survey each measurement, and because this was much faster, we used Google Earth Pro to find distances. We realized that this was not the most accurate by any means, but we failed to find a better solution given our time constraints.

These were pictures and process from when I was involved with the first topographic map. Our class decided at one point to split up into two different groups, and work on two separate maps, to talk about differences and learn more. For the second map, I worked with Gautam, Cameron, and Lucas.

We first had to create the base-level topography out of cardboard. For this process, I created the slices based on the thickness of the cardboard in relation to the scale of the map we wanted. The process to getting the lines to cut was:

1. Get the topographic data in SketchUp. Export as STL.
2. Drape over the STL in Rhino. Use the Contour command to create the slices based on the material thickness. Export as DXF.
3. Import DXF into Illustrator. Clean up and separate pieces for laser cutter.

Constructing the Map —

That last picture is an image of our final model.

____________________

One thing I started to do was think about the scale of not only physical size, but also time. I realized that I was extremely lucky to participate in a Deep Time Walk during the 2016 CMU Orientation. I got a scale of the history of the universe and the earth as we know it through the form of a hike representing the passage of time with each step.

I also really enjoy the visual of our arm span representing all of time. The idea is that everyone we ever knew or will know exists on the whites of our furthest fingernail. The scale is absurd, yet we choose to think only of that one part of the nail.

I suppose when one starts to look at one’s own scale in relation to either the vast universe or to those things viewed in a microscope, they can justify a self image of either extreme insignificance or significance.

I wonder if this choice of what scale we choose to see ourselves or the things around us is a conscious decision, and if not, what mechanisms decide on it.