#casebrief

[lethaldosepod]

Olga Tsvyk was poisoned with phenazepam-tainted cheesecake by a woman who wanted to steal her identity.

Listen to the whole case NOW wherever you stream podcasts.

[frederikhojlund]

Results from testing: Not on the floor - on the wall

After live testing we have realised, that it is practically (almost) impossible to project our tracking output onto the floor in Atrium at ITU. There is simply too much light coming from the glass facades. Instead we are now exploring a traditional flat screen or projection onto a white sheet of fabric. This changes the interactional situation slightly from “direct” to “mapped” (Norman, 1998, p. 23), which invites for different kinds of concepts.

The wall is less direct, but at the other hand it gives the user a better overview of the whole situation. He can more easily assess, what is going on in other places of the motion tracking area.

A traditional screen will have to show the video of people walking around - what the computer sees - along with the overlaid graphics. Otherwise it is hard for the user to figure out, that the graphics respond to his motion.

By showing the captured video of the users themselves the aesthetic of the experience changes. It becomes clearer, how the interaction system perceives and interprets actions. Suddenly the output connotes surveillance and puts emphasis on the feeling of being watched. Surveillance could be an interesting theme for the installation, but it implies negative associations, that don’t match the idea of welcoming visitors. Therefore we needed to find a balance in our concept.

References:

Norman, Donald A. (1998) [1988]: “The Design of Everyday Things”, The MIT Press, London, England.