Journal 11: Reflections on interactive prototype 2

1. In Class exercise
    1.1 Multiple concepts of musical composition

    To play Theremin Duet, we need put our hands above it and move our hands. I think these are five ways to represent movement in 3D space and then reproduced.

 
    Firstly, we can remember actions of hands and mimic the player's action to reproduce it. We just need to remember his hands move up or down.
 
 















    The second one is that we remember the position of hands. For example,  we can remember  the height of the hand to leave the base of  Theremin Duet or the distance between hand and antenna. Then, we put hands in the same position and play this musical instruments.
 
   










      Thirdly, players can practice and learn this music repeatedly.

     Another one is people can programming a piece of code which dealing with playing this music. For example, if this code runs, the Theremin will play the melody automatically. In this case, for each playing, the melody should be exactly the same because the function of this code is the same.

    The final one is that we can design a special robot. It has machine arms. It use arms to control the Theremin. Also, we set the movement of its arms is the same to ensure that it plays precise reproduction of music.

 
    1.2   Testing approach
    I will record the original audio, and then I also record audio which create previous five ways. Then, I will each record with the original one and check the fidelity. It is because I want to check whether reproduction of music is precise. In addition, each method will be records many times because it should be repeatable. It means the fidelity of each music recording should be very close. When the music are playing, it should sound the same.

   1.3 A Pugh Matrix

    In the Pugh Martix, There are 6 criteria need to be considered, namely accuracy, difficulty, skill, technology, performance, and extraordinary play. As for accuracy, difficulty, skill, these weights 3 marks. For technology, performance, and extraordinary play, each of that occupied 2 marks.
 

   As for action mimic and position copy, people usually can remember the player's action or his hands position. If people remember that correctly, they can reproduce basic music correctly.  However, if people forget or occasionally remember wrong, they will make mistakes on playing. Therefore, I ranked these two aspects at 2  and 1 marks respectively. To remember that these actions have some difficulty, but not very difficult, say 2 marks. People only need to remember these action, do not need technology support such as using their phone to record a video of Theremin Duet. So, I give it 0 mark for both action mimic and position copy. Then,  about the life performance, it depends on whether people accurately remember the action or location. If yes, they can reproduce the music. and may have some extraordinary play. However, they can not performance well. I give it 1 mark, because if people remember wrong, it will negatively influences the performance.
 
   For practice, people can learn playing skills much better than just mimic action or position. After a long time of practicing, they can have better accuracy when they play the Theremin Duet. So it values 3 marks. But it is hard than just simply memorize, recorded 3 marks. People acquire higher playing skill by practicing, so they also get higher performance and extraordinary play. Each of these are worth 3 marks. Overall, it seems the best option I got.

   For Programing and Robot,  they have similar composition. The main idea is use technology to reproduce the movement. If we program the right code to control the Theremin Duet, it will never go wrong. So it has the highest mark of accuracy, say 3. It also do not need any skill of the player, because the machine will operate the song automatically, which ranked 0 mark. It use hi-tech, so it values 3 marks for technology. But watching robot or listening music via coding might be boring. Thus, it get low marks than human-playing performance.

    In sum, There is not a clear winner in this testing because each method has its own advantage and disadvantage

    

2. Prototype Process

    This week I will evaluate my interactive prototype feedback of physical controller and decide which aspects should to be improved.

    According to the feedbacks, most of people agreed that the physical controller is convenient. 66.7% testers think it is convenient and 16.7% testers think it is very convenient. Only one tester believed that it is not convenient. Overall, this controller is easy to use and the test result is good.

  This question aims to know whether the character’s movement response the tester’ request accurately. For example, the player want it go to right, the character would not go the left side. Many testers said the controller matches the movement and performs well, occupying 50%. Some testers are not sure of that, recorded at 33.3%.

    I want to the player use their fingers’ motion to mimic and express the direction of character. When their finger slides to right, the character goes to right. This question focus on whether the physical interaction can match the characters’ movement. Half of testers claim that the idea of slide finger is suitable and it is an interesting interaction to control the direction. 16.7% of testers think it is very suitable. However, two testers think this physical controller is just so so or not suitable. 

    The majority of testers got confusion on attack snake toy, say 33.3%. The reason is that the health (Hp) of enemy is not displayed. They not sure whether they had caused the damage on it or not. Therefore, I will add a Hp bar of each enemy snake. The player can check how much damage they took when they are attack the snake. Another drawback is that it is a little bit hard to turn left or right and jump at the same time. I will separate a whole jump bar into 3 parts, which is left jump, straight jump and right jump. So the player can only press one button to jump instead of holding slide bar and jump bar. It may be easier.

    There are 50 % of people like my physical design very much and 33.3% of people like it. I am happy to hear that, because people like this idea. In addition, attacking the snake toy is the most interesting physical interaction, recorded at 66.7%. Testers claimed that compared with clicking on keyboard, it is much more fun to hit on a real toy. 

    The answers to this question are distributed equally and each one occupied 33.3%. I will simplify some buttons which have similar functions and combine them together. For example, button A or B for guessing answer and Snake toy can be combined into one button somehow, thereby reducing the number of buttons. 

    Based on results of these two open questions, some testers not only want to hit the body of snake toy, but also smack the head. They suggested that it would enhance the physical interaction because of the increasing attackable area attackable. I will cover aluminum foil on the head of toy and connect it with MakeyMakey. Another useful advice is that player can be hit different spot on snake toy body instead of hitting on a fixed point. It will make the control more flexible. And I will change it. Finally, some tester said that they got a bit confused which button is which. Therefore, I will add labels to remind them and help them to know how to use the controller.

    In sum, although there are some weaknesses of my new physical controller, it is still welcomed and the test result is good. I am satisfied with these outcomes of the prototype and I required sufficient feedback. I will fix and improve my game in following prototype.