What is A Space for Reflection?

A Space for Reflection is an interactive composition that asks participants to submit a word or phrase in response to a piece of music. This word or phrase is added to a database which is used to generate a soundscape composition. The participant can then physically control the progress of the piece by walking down a hallway.

How does A Space for Reflection work?

A participant is asked to sit down to a table with a computer, a microphone and a pair of wireless headphones with an Xbee attached. The participant is then asked to press play on a keyboard in front of them. In the headphones, a short piece of music begins to play.
When the piece is over, a voice then asks the participant to press a button and say the first word or phrase that comes to their mind. That word or phrase is then added to a database and the participant is asked to stand up and slowly walk down the hallway.

As the user progresses, a generated composition using the database of participant’s responses is played back in the participants headphones. The Xbee is wireless transmitting their distance from the beginning of the hallway. This data is then mapped to control the participant’s position in the generated composition. As they step forward, the composition builds forward whereas as they step backwards the composition deconstructs. With each new participant a new addition to the database is made, making the composition’s textures and density sonically richer.

An audio example of a generated response =
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/133348/a%20space%20for%20reflection%20-%200.4.mp3

Here I’m using two ultrasonic sensors to move a sketch I made in processing via serial communication. Serial Lab 2

Observation. Pick a piece of interactive technology in public, used by multiple people. Write down your assumptions as to how it’s used, and describe the context in which it’s being used. Watch people use it, preferably without them knowing they’re being observed. Take notes on how they use it, what they do differently, what appear to be the difficulties, what appear to be the easiest parts. Record what takes the longest, what takes the least amount of time, and how long the whole transaction takes. Consider how the readings from Norman and Crawford reflect on what you see.

I chose to observe the metro card swipe because it has a unique New York characteristic to it.  You can spot new yorker from tourists by how they instinctively know the timing that it takes for the reader to approve the card.  What amazes me about this specific device is that the punishment for user error results in negative social feedback.  In other-words, if you disrupt the pace of the subway entrance there will be a large amount of unhappy faces behind you.  If there is any thing I have learned from living in New York it is that one should never disrupt the pace of new york, so this device requires the simplest implementation for all users.  Because the strip is only on one side of the metro card users rarely try to insert the card improperly which is seen more commonly in vertical card readers such as the busses.

The most common two errors I observed were either a user misjudging the timing (i.e. swiping too fast or too slow) which results in the LCD display to advise you to swipe the card again, or the user to have insufficient fare to enter the subway.  In both cases all users‘ bodies‘ were in motion as the card was swiped.  This means that when their card was denied their body continued moving into a locked turnstile, which at times can be a harsh negative feedback.

Without errors a whole transaction takes only a few seconds, though when an error occurs I observed people try for 3 – 5 attempts until usually giving up which takes between 30 seconds to 3 minutes.  Each attempt also drastically increases the level of frustration from spectators behind.

By having the card horizontal the user is allowed to remove the card from their wallet by garbing the top horizontal half.  With this in mind the card reader is strategically designed to promote a forward motion while allowing the user to keep holding their card.

I suspect that Crawford would appreciate its overall approach where Norman  would most likely question the purpose of an LCD read out.  To quote Norman “When simple things need pictures, labels, or instructions, the design has failed.”  Perhaps the feedback could be displayed clearer or perhaps this exception of that rule may be because in this device there is unique .information that is only important to that specific user, a custom message is required.  Which leads me to ask the question, how simple can we design public devices that also give out user specific information?