Comics, Robots, Fashion and
Programming
Computer programming is focused on a
relatively small group and the typical programming doesn’t interest a large
part of the population. But if simpler programming, or at least manipulation of
the ordinary use setting, can be put into a physical activity – for example
programming with Lego – more people can get involved in it. The article is
essentially about design exploration of physical languages for controlling and
programming robotics. People tend wanting to give life to their technical
gadgets, whether it’s putting a sticker on their computer or dressing up robotic
consumer products and this is where actDresses come in. Theories of semiotics
in comics and fashion are discussed to see if they can contribute to the
controlling and programming of robotics. One example could be attaching
bracelets with symbols representing program actions on a robot. An example is
given where a bracelet with symbols containing program actions could be put on
a robot.
I found the article very interesting
and at times quite amusing, it’s not often you get to read about Barbie and
Comics in an academic research paper. But I missed a practical example of their
theory. Making a working prototype, just a very simple one, would have added a
lot for me. The concept of actDress is very innovative and it will be exciting
to see where this goes in the future.
Prototypes
The name prototype comes from the
Greek prototypon, which essentially means “primitive form” and that is pretty
much what a prototype is. A prototype is an early version or test version built
to trial a new design and functions and usually does not have all the features
that the final version will have, or at least not as advanced. Or they lack
quality in interaction between user and the product or just having a worse
material and so on. An evaluation of the test-data from users having tested the
prototype can then point you in a whole other direction than you were heading
for in the beginning, advice you to make small adjustments or just confirm
them. In the “Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball”-paper they used a prototype which
looks nothing like their vision of the finished product, but it still got them
good results in the sense of recalibrating variables such as the vibration
strength. Prototypes can be very valuable in new research areas since they can
be used as a start-of-point in further research, and even if they’re not great
they will still have significant role in the start-up process of a field and
show that the area is worth exploring.
Except from getting a general idea of
the product, prototypes can also be used to verify if a concept or method has
an actual potential of being used in the form of a proof of concept prototype.
Or if a specific method or idea can prove to be feasible. Maybe some functions
that seemed great at the drawing table will turn out to be totally neglected.
I as well thought that the article by Fernaeus et. al. would have gained a lot if it would have contained some kind of real application. That is the one fact that I based my question on. What would a real application be? And also, is it clear that the end-users really want this kind of functionality? I understand that there are research that indicate that there exists a desire of new forms of programming, but is this really what is meant by that? Maybe it can serve as a first step towards something good, but I do not know what that would be at this point. The article certainly leaves you thinking!
SvaraRaderaThats a good question Carl, I didn't get the feeling that this new explorative new types of interaction through physical programming have any base of demand. I can't think of any product offhand that feels specifically in need for this kind of interaction. But i guess that you need to experience and create a demand for everything thats new. I feel that it would be easier to relate if there would have been more of a everyday item that was integrated with this physical programming. As you mention, an application would have been a good choise.
RaderaI somewhat agree with you Carl and Gustav. But I find the article a bit too fuzzy since I got the feeling of their concept but not to which degree this is achievable. What got me thinking are that the level of simplicity to the programming is also what puts a halt to how advanced the robot can be.
SvaraRaderaIf something advanced should be expressed by the robot, the input from the user who should program it can't be to simple, how else is the code of this "advanced" gesture of the robot arm be executed? (just an example). I don't really get how It can be applied in practice.