the California Bay Area and have
begun branching out to other cities such as Austin, Texas.
Electronic Prototyping
for the Rest of Us
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.
A Screwdriver
and a Set of Pliers
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
