Experiment on a Seesaw as the Direct Communication Initiator

ABSTRACT
This experiment is to explore the potential of the seesaw as a direct communication initiator in the urban public space. First, the plain seesaw in various public settings was observed. The first observation shows that playing seesaw can initiate the conversation between people who already know each other, but initiating the strangers to play the seesaw together is very difficult except for the special occasion. However, once strangers play the seesaw, they converse and introduce themselves. Second observation was done with the seesaw with auditory responsive system that works as the attractor and the reward system. This has increased the frequency and the duration of people’s playing the seesaw. The second observation also shows that the responsive system pulls more participation of the pedestrian but at the same time makes them more cautious about their behavior. The experiment needs to go further, suggesting that more tempting and satisfying reward needs to be expected from initial touching of the seesaw in order to make it possible for the strangers to act together and in order to make the conversation on the seesaw more sustainable.



BACKGROUND
I speculated that a cooperative character of seesaw and the close proximity occurred when sitting on a seesaw would increase the local communication in the urban setting where the communication and relationship is not proportional to the physical proximity[1]. The initial design was the seesaw that charges the mobile phone while initiating the conversation between the people. The mobile phone charger functions as the attractor and the reward of overcoming the shyness and taking the risk of being with stranger.

I wanted to observe and verify the actual sociable potentiality of a seesaw in a public space. However, the seesaw as a electricity generator is hard to be used as the attractor of the public because of the lack of prior understanding of the unusual function. In order to study the inviting and rewarding factor from the observation, I planned to experiment with the plain seesaw to observe the potentiality of the direct communication it can initiate and to go through the iterative observation process. The observation was done twice in the various public settings.


FIELD OBSERVATION 1
I produced the full-scale seesaw to observe how it will initiate the direct communication between people in the public place.

Seesaw production

The seesaw is made of softwood lumbers and a steel rode. The scale is designed for adults. When balanced, the height is 21 inches. The length, which is 50 inches, is designed as being shorter than conventional seesaw in order to invite and ease the conversation between the sitters.

Observation
The seesaw was placed in several types of public space which varies in population and sociableness. The tested places consisted of beer and dog event at GSD, a crossroad, the front of science canter, the harvard yard, Au Bon Pain at harvard square and harvard square T station. The observation last about 20 minutes at each places, except the harvard yard where one family happened to enjoy the seesaw for a long time.


(1) Initial observation was done at beer and dog, which is a weekly sociable event at GSD. Followings could be observed there.
- Adults played the seesaw and started conversation between strangers.
- Some adults expressed their nostalgic feeling to the seesaw.
- Some adults played the seesaw in their own way, i.e. sitting facing towards the opposite direction.
**Special conditions
- Most of the people were slightly drunken adults.
- The strangers were likely to be assumed as being affiliated with the school.

(2) Crossroad
- Some adults touched the seesaw.
- The seesaw drew some attention.

(3) The front of science center is comparatively less touristic public place where students and families enjoy walking in the sun.
- A couple of adults played seesaw.
- Several families played seesaw and seemed to enjoy the unexpected experience.
- Several adults touched the seesaw and changed the balance when passing by it.
- Some adults expressed their nostalgic feeling to the seesaw.

(4) Yard in front of John Harvard statue is both a passage for the students and a touristic spot.
- Many adults touched the seesaw to move the balance but did not actually play it.
- Two groups of adults played the seesaw and ended up with taking photographs.
- Several families played seesaw.
- One father and his young son played the seesaw for about 20 minutes constantly talking to each other.

(5) Au Bon Pain at harvard square is a meeting place with the large floating population.
- Some adults touched the seesaw.
- The seesaw drew some attention.

(6) The front of Harvard square T station is a crowded place for transportation rather than a touristic spot.
- No one touched the seesaw.
- The seesaw hardly got attention.

Results
The seesaw in the public place easily gets attention except at the place for transportation where the population is in motion with a goal of arriving somewhere else. Especially the children easily get interested in the seesaw and play it. Adults tend to get interested in the seesaw and often touch it but do not often play it. Adults in sociable context converse with stranger on seesaw. Adults in normal situation do not play the seesaw or converse with stranger. Adults who already know each other play the seesaw and converse. An adult and a child converse each other. Children do not converse on a seesaw whether they already know each other or not.

Initial findings
The seesaw itself draws the attention and invites people to touch it in the public space. The seesaw seems to be perceived as an emotional object for adults. while it seems to be an exciting toy for children.

Playing the seesaw sometimes forms intimate and isolated environment of the two sitters regardless of the actual context of the place.

It is hard to make perfect strangers to play seesaw together unless they are in the context of sociable event or the players are children under their parents care. But once they start playing, the seesaw make the adults start conversation and end up with introduce themselves to each other. The children don’t converse with each other when playing a seesaw.

Playing seesaw is about conversation when one or more sitters are adults. The motivation for adults to continue moving the seesaw after initial touching is needed for playing the seesaw longer and initiating the conversation.


FIELD OBSERVATION 2
I added the sensor and actuator to the seesaw to produce the sensory feedback to touching reaction by pedestrians and increase the curiosity. The purpose is to observe whether it increases the people and time of playing the seesaw in a public place.

System design



The seesaw itself draws visual attention and invite people in the public space. In order to increase the actual interaction, such as touching the seesaw, of the pedestrians, the seesaw is producing the weak sound which can be heard by the people in the close proximity. The added auditory cue amplifies the curiosity about the unusual seesaw.

Upon touching the seesaw, the tilt change of the seesaw triggers the louder sound to provide the clue that there is the rewarding from playing the seesaw. Constantly playing seesaw keeps the sound louder. My original plan includes that starting conversation triggers the sound effect which results in more cheerful and ambient sound which would not disturb the conversation and would help increasing the positive affection, which could not be realized before the second field observation.

The first iteration consists of an accelerometer and a piezo speaker wired with the arduino microcontroller, which makes the stand-alone interactive system. The piezon speaker produces a diatonic scale proportional to the tilt of the seesaw board. However, the speaker does not produce the favorable sound.

The second iteration consists of Max/MSP software and Wii controller. The sound output is from the built-in speaker of the MacBook. The reason of using Wii controller is that I could not get the bluetooth wireless component that can be used for connecting the Max/MSP installed MacBook with the arduino. By using this system, several types of sound were tested and the soft trembling sound was selected among the simple midi sound, the piano sound of playing chromatic scale and the ambient music.

Observation
The site of observation includes GSD cafeteria and the harvard yard. The observation last about 20 minutes at each places.



(1) GSD cafeteria has a floating population of design students.
- Some adults attended the seesaw.
- Two people played the seesaw.
- One person commented the sound attracted his attention very much.

(2) Yard in front of John Harvard statue is both a passage for the students and a touristic spot.
- The seesaw attracted more people with the initial sound, while some people commented not to notice the sound at all.
- The increase of sound intensity attracted adults to touch or play the seesaw longer than the one without the interactive system.
- One person commented short length seesaw made it harder to balance.
- One person commented that he attended the seesaw from a far distance because of its unusual context.
- One person looked for and revealed the control system.
- The seesaw tended to pull attention from the surroundings to the opposite sitter.
- The laptop near to the seesaw seemed to threaten the people from interacting with the seesaw.

Results
The initial sound and the increase of sound triggered by touching the seesaw invite more people to play the seesaw longer. The sound generally increases the curiosity. However, the sound and the visible system such as laptop computer also makes people to be more cautious and hesitate touching or playing with the seesaw. Some people did not notice the sound in the field.


CONCLUSION
The design of seesaw is intended for increasing the communication between people at a close distance. The seesaw in a public place invites the pedestrians to touch and play it because of its unusual context. Playing the seesaw sometimes forms intimate and isolated environment of the two sitters regardless of the actual context of the place. The responsive sound of the seesaw also increases the curiosity and the frequency of playing the seesaw. However, the seesaw, whether it is interactive or not, does not seem to trigger the communication between strangers except the case where the people are already in the sociable setting.

At the same time, the sound and the interactive system which is visible but can be suspicious increases the precaution of the people. The obvious act of documenting the situation does not seem to worry people as much as the laptop, similarly to the Performance Three of Souveillance project done by Mann, Nolan an Wellman[2]. It could be seen from people that the tension between the curiosity and the precaution about the interactive seesaw exists.

More familiar and sustainable interaction that would decrease the precaution and maintain the curiosity is needed for the improvement of the seesaw for increasing the local communication. More specific and tangible reward that does not require the additional explanation is also needed. In order for making the chance for the strangers to play the seesaw together and start conversation, it is worth thinking of the alternative type of reward which is very tempting and satisfying to the degree that may have people to want to sing or dance with strangers in a special occasion.


REFERENCES
[1] Milgram, S. (1970) The Experience of Living in Cities. Science, New Series, 167, 1461-1468.
[2] Mann, S., Nolan, J. and Wellman, B. (2003) Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments. Surveillance & Society 1(3), 331-355.

Four Questions

1. Can the public acceptance of being recorded as an act of souveillance/coveillance, which was experimented in Mann, Nolan & Wellman’s paper, be explained by the Marx’s criteria of normative expectations such as manner, honest and a fair play?

2. Can the concept of sousveillance challenge Elmer’s (dark)vision of A Diagram of Panoptic Surveillance where people consume “more of the same” and thus may become more homogeneous?

3. Is the sousveillance empowering the individual? Does surveilling the surveillance really neutralize the surveillance? Or will the sousveillance/coveillance in the highly networked environment be another form of more complex and powerful panoptic surveillance with too many banalized small towers(and the prisoners at the same time), which would eventually re-imprison all the individuals?

4. Does keeping privacy mean “not-existing” in the environment with easy surveillance and recognition systems? Will existence be defined by whether it is recognized or surveilled?

Proposal for the Final Project

Problem/Question
Some of the characters of urban life, such as the disconnection between proximity and friendship, is closely related to the concern about the negative effect such as potential danger. The fear of the potential danger again increases the indifference and ignorance about the neighbor and disconnects the proximity and friendship more. This fear can be diminished by getting rid of the dangerous factor and by acquainting the neighbor more. In order to diminish the fear, and to increase the friendship in the close proximity, more sociable and safe situation in the location-specific context is needed. This situation will help people to share the common experience and increase the amount of communication within the neighborhood, which bears the opportunity of forming the new relationships. My question is that what context could invite the people to the local and sociable situation and what reward the people would get from the attempt of communication, being free from or trading with the potential danger. I explored this question in two different levels of directness of the communication and the relationship.


#1: Atlas
The first approach leads the indirect communication in the semi-outside space like the courtyard that can hold up to large number of people.
*The great court roof covering the inner square of the British museum

The courtyard has the mesh structure which is hung loosely from the roof top of the surrounding building. This mesh structure is responsive to the presence of a person on the ground level. The small part of the mesh structure rises forming a small peak, following the trajectory of a person as if a person is carrying invisible stick on his/her head, which extends slightly beyond the height of the building. The second person will add another peak, and so on. The small peaks will moving around the roof level of the courtyard separately, creating the kinetic representation of the indirect communication. When more than two peaks collide, they form explosive volume and stay still for a while. And, when the people move around more fast, the peaks also rise more until the entire mesh structure will rise fully like an inflated dome. When there are more than a certain number of people under the mesh structure, the mesh will also rise fully. When it rises fully, the illusive impression of carrying the sky on the heads will be amplified, and this experience of collective achievement will make people who are involved in the location feel more familiar and attached to each other.
The realization of the mesh structure can be either (1)having the mechanical actuator as the mesh structure which is directly controlled by the system or (2)actuating the fans arranged in a matrix underneath the mesh, and having the wind from the fans to blow the mesh structure which is made of soft material. The second approach seems easier to install, but it requires the further consideration of maintaing the visibility to the mesh.


#2: Seesaw
The second approach delivers more direct communication between people. In this approach, the shared place and goal become the medium, leaving the system as the motivation and catalyst for the communication.

When the battery of mobile communication device is out, it becomes the frustrating situation even for the people who are not in a very urgent situation. People often gather around the place like a cafe for a power supply. The power supply can invite people within a close proximity and has the potential of creating the opportunity for face-to-face communication.

I would like to suggest a seesaw which can generate the emergent electricity for mobile phone or laptop. The seesaw has the outlet for the power plug, and it generates the electricity when the board starts to move up and down. To play the seesaw, it requires two people on each tip of the board, which is shorter in length than the conventional seesaw. The shorter board will position the two people physically closer and would make more chances for them to have the conversation during playing the seesaw. If the two people do not converse, the seesaw will still work as the generator. However, the conversation between the two people will trigger the stronger electricity. The conversation is detected by the microphone which is located in the center of seesaw and the amount of conversation is also indicated by the number of LEDs turned on. The seesaw should be located in an open and visible space in order to protect the players from the potential danger from a stranger.
The seesaw will embrace more frequent communication among the strangers than not having it, because of the following reasons. (1)At least one of the people is not connected through mobile phone or laptop, and this situation tends to make people to feel more interested in the surroundings. (2)The two people are sitting on a seesaw facing each other. The eye contact makes a person to perceive the other one as a real personality which has a “name,” so a facing sitting makes it harder to ignore each other. (3)Especially when both two people need the electricity and they share the common goal and concern, the situation will make it easier to start the conversation. (4)The efficiency of producing the electricity, which can be indicated by the LED, will drive more conversation.

*I found this image on the internet and could not remember the original link.

*see/saw(2001), Camille Utterback & Adam Chapman used the seesaw as the trigger for text and audio response.

Assignment: Augmented interaction part 1

1. Phone like Device for Picnic
2. Communication in Public Space: Strings

Communication in Public Space: Strings

The mobile telecommunication and the internet has been accelerating the characters of the urban experience, which Milgram mentioned, into the global scale. The characters like the disconnection between proximity and friendship, superficial and disposable relationships, difficulty in trusting, anonymity, etc, can also be found in the mobile and web communication context. These characters might seem inhuman, however, it is also true that it may be the essential condition for human to develop these qualities based on the social and cognitive efficiency in order to sustain the balanced life in the current urban setting. People may not have had the options. In order to embrace the interaction among the people in the urban neighborhood, instead of the interaction among the far locations worldwide, it is important to start from what people would not feel overloaded by others or what people would not consider themselves disturbing others.

One thing I was thinking is to install the simple and playful strings in various parts of the city in order to create the relationships among neighbors and, at the same time, to conform to the characters of urban and telecommunicational life. The strings are tied in various public spaces. The string can be plucked by any pedestrians. When it is plucked, the string trembles making playful sinusoid. And this trembling string sends the signal to randomly selected string or strings in the neighborhood in order to make it tremble. Then another person who is sitting on a bench notices that a string in front of him starts trembling. He could ignore it but he plucks back the string as well thinking that there is at least one more person in the neighborhood who is plucking a string like him.

The exchange of plucking can last short or long, or the exchange may not be achieved at all when there is no willing recipients on the other side. Recipients are much more free to disregard the signal because they know it is not an urgent or specific message they can interpret, and because the trembling signal is rather subtle that people can hardly notice when they are in the course of doing something else. But when the people are in a good mood and willing to respond, the exchange of trembling starts going back and forth, and the trembling strings become the pure interaction among urban anonymity which evokes the existence of others and the willingness to communicate, but still without having to challenge the shyness, potential danger, and the responsibility to sustain the relationship.

Phone like Device for Picnic

This idea is to propose the mobile communication device that enables the dialog between two groups in outdoors settings. It has the mic, speaker, camera and the display. The display looks like a round shaped rug which can be rolled for easy transportation and works as a reflective surface of the well. The round shape is for inviting the people into the dialog equally, and by looking into the display, the conversational counterpart can be seen. For example, friends in Boston and LA can go to a picnic and have a chat together in a laid back posture, sitting on the grass, sharing the vision of their faces and the sceneries, although the picnics happen separately in a physical sense. It can also be installed in public space in order to facilitate the dialog among neighbors.

Design Problem 3: concrete and abstract portraits

1. A Portrait Based on the Physical Appearance: My Face Eating
2. A Portrait Based on the Data: A Difference Portrait