the California Bay Area and have begun branching out to other cities such as Austin, Texas.
Though electronic systems have become more prevalent in the design of everyday objects, they certainly are not a new phenomenon that would warrant an explosion in creative activity. What has changed is not the existence of electronic components or even ideas in creative technology, but access to tools and resources. Programmable chips, LEDs, and other electronic parts are cheaper than ever before. At the same time, easy-to-use electronics prototyping systems allow designers to quickly mock up physical user interfaces in a way that was, until recently, only accessible to engineers and electronics enthusiasts. Phidgets (http://www. phidgets.com) are a system for interfacing physical inputs with a computer via USB. “Plug and play” sensor kits allow anyone to monitor properties such as temperature, pressure, rotation, and 3D position. Specialized inputs such as touch sliders and RFID readers are also available, and many of the kits also have outputs for controlling physical devices like lights and motors. The boards can be controlled via a number of programming environments, and their incorporation of Flash ActionScript makes it an easy transition for many designers who have never worked with electronics before.
Arduino ( http://www.arduino. cc) is an input/output system similar to Phidgets, but it is completely open source and has a strong community following. Created at the Interaction
Institute Ivrea in Milan, it has its own programming environment, but like Phidgets, can also be interfaced with many other common programming environments such as Flash ActionScript.
and software tinkering with an open source platform. It has two USB ports as well as built-in position sensors (via accelerometers), so the combination of virtual and physical behaviors is endless.
While plug and play kits like Phidgets and Arduino offer a powerful approach to experimenting with device behaviors, you can’t beat the immediacy of hacking an existing device when its functions will fit the bill for a project at hand. The popularity of electronic gadgets has led manufacturers to offer a plethora of new products that combine several sophisticated capabilities in a small case. Nabaztag is one such gadget. A WiFi-enabled device in the shape of an abstracted toy bunny with glowing lights and motor-controlled ears, it can be set to display user-configured ambient information such as stock market data, weather, or specialized tasks such as notification of when a specified user logs on to IM. Despite the fact that the bunny’s creator does not promote the item as “hackable,” splinter communities have begun to emerge online to encourage Nabaztag hacking.
Chumby is an ambient device that combines WiFi access with a touchscreen display for viewing content via user-selected “widgets.” While not quite as dis-tinctive-looking as the Nabaztag bunny, it redefines the information appliance by embracing the spirit of customization and community-based knowledge exhange. Its makers boast that it is “completely hackable” and actively encourage both hardware
Hacker Culture and You Though I agree that the temperamental approach of a “rebel artiste,” as Luke Kowalski described in his November-December 2007 article for interactions [ 5], can be counterproductive to a design project, there is still a lot to be gleaned from the DIY community. We are in the midst of a tinkerer-maker revolution where everyone from amateur geeks to world-class artists are sharing a common spirit of creative energy. The DIY attitude is one of play, experimentation, and an appreciation for an intellectual landscape of possibility and undefined paths. It is visionary in its ability to maintain its rose-colored viewpoint and look beyond the nuts, bolts, and masking tape to the essence of something new. While it is natural to celebrate this subculture as some curiosity to be lurked at from afar, it may take some effort to embrace and integrate into design practice, but the knowledge gained will be well worth it.
[ 5] Luke Kowalski, “A ‘Survivor’-like Designer Reality Show?” interactions 14, no. 6 (2007): 20-22.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Carla Diana (http://www. carladiana.com) is an industrial designer and educator with a diverse background in design, technology and product research. Currently a visiting assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, she is also cofounder of Spank Design Studio (http:// www.spankdesign.com) and is working on a variety of projects from cocktail shakers to emotive robots.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without the fee, provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on services or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. © ACM 1072-5220/08/0300 $5.00
March + April 2008
References:
Archives