Posts Tagged ‘itp’

…of course i was logging

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Screen shot 2010-01-30 at 20.12.55I fractured my ankle in a hard snowboard crash a couple of weeks ago and of course I was data logging the accelerometer forces. I was using the iPhone app developed last fall for the seismi{c}ycling project; while riding the phone was in my jacket’s internal chest pocket.

A group from ITP was enjoying the bitter weather at Mount Snow, in West Dover, VT on our (now annual?) Snowbunnies trip. This crash was late in the day on a wide open trail. I accidentally disengaged my heelside edge for a moment, causing me to rotate slightly clockwise and slide laterally. Moments later, my heelside edge caught again, now on the downhill side, causing me to quickly flip backwards onto my head … thankfully I was wearing a helmet. After that I can’t recall what exactly happened, but I know that it involved a lot of tumbling which my right ankle just couldn’t weather. (more…)

motivations: karma

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

[written for Media Economics & Participation at ITP]

Slashdot users are seeking karma. However, gaining positive karma at Slashdot is just a means to an end; Slashdot users are seeking (limited) power and status among their peers in the form of fleeting moderator access for the vibrant comments component of the highly active, technology-focused news aggregation site. Moderators are chosen from among the registered users using a somewhat obscure algorithm which incorporates each user’s karma rating (a scale of Terrible, Bad, Neutral, Positive, Good, and Excellent), length of membership and randomness. Selected moderators are given special status and 5 mod{eration} points with an expiration window of three days. The moderation status ends when the points have been used in the act of moderating comments or have expired.

The moderation system has been borne out of necessity as the Slashdot community has grown large, bringing the signal-to-noise ratio down and decreasing the satisfaction in reading the raw comment threads. “Flamebait” and “trolls” contribute little more than instigation for starting arguments and fights among the users with typically strong opinions on matters which usually appear on Slashdot. Rob Malda, founder of Slashdot, explains this phenomenon on the Slashdot FAQ: (more…)

it’s real (time) !

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

all eventsafter a couple of late nights, i have a proof-of-concept in the real-time cycling-related datalogging. the reasons behind the project are still getting sorted, but lately my interest in ubiquitous urban sensor networks has been piqued and this is a tentative exploration in that area. sensors don’t have to remain static as part of physical infrastructure…millions of people are carrying millions of sensors around with them daily. (more…)

ITP 1-in-1: bike blinky!

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

blinky_on_bikeFor the 1-in-1 Project as part of ITP’s 30th anniversary celebration I over-engineering the simple bicycle blinky light. Why go for a simple, off-the-shelf blinky light when we can build a much more complicated one ourselves?!

I’m creating an animated display, which changes to solid red while braking.

Update: (5:26) It’s been a long night, but it all came together. I wish I could have finished at the floor, but sometimes you need to go to your cave. The bike blinky light is all I could have asked for…it’s obnoxious, it’s animated, it has a handlebar control to switch to a flashing warning mode. (more…)

Rest of You: Bike Forces

Monday, September 28th, 2009

IMG_0726(note: I’m awaiting the HR sensor, this is mostly outward forces)

I’m logging the acceleration forces at the handlebars of my bicycle while riding through New York City. The body has roughly three contact points with a bicycle, the hands at the handlebars, the “seat” at the saddle, and the feet at the pedals. The downward force of the rider’s weight and pedaling force and the upward forces of the bicycle rolling over uneven ground are distributed over these three points. I was interested to see just what kind of forces are “pushing back” that I may not be aware of, myself lost in the act of simply keeping the bicycle upright and safely navigating through traffic.

handlebar_vibrationTo contextualize the raw accelerometer data I also tracking GPS location and eventually geocoding the raw data in software. The bicycle sensors are being transmitted via Bluetooth to a mobile phone and the data is logged with a custom written (but now open-source!) python script. Below is the first draft of the visualization. (more…)


Saturday, September 26th, 2009

handlebar_vibrationThis is just a teaser for a project I’ve recently begun, but I had an “a-ha” moment when the visualization program finally came together just now and wanted to share…

This is geocoded accelerometer data from the handlebars of my bicycle on my commute from Greenpoint to ITP in the East Village. The sample at middle of the graph, and the red circle on the path coincide. I realized just now that this is a seam in the Williamsburg Bridge. Neat.

I’ll post proper documentation of the project as it becomes more robust…but I’m excited. Waiting for the heart rate monitor interface to arrive…looking to couple internal status with external events…

Site-Specific: Week 2, Comments

Monday, September 21st, 2009

This is a rough collection of comments and notes on the assignment for week 2 of Site-Specific. (more…)

Driving Forces

Friday, September 18th, 2009

[assignment in the syllabus]
A driving force is a trend or factor, operating in the world today, which will influence the way the future evolves over the next 5-15 years. We were asked to identify a driving force, and it’s associated predetermined elements and critical uncertainties.

Driving Force:
There is a desire for immediate knowledge of trends and events in the physical world.

Predetermined Element:
The physical world will be entirely digitized, and monitored in real-time with a network of sensors. A comprehensive network of various sensors, and software to aggregate and analyze the gathered data will inform wide-ranging areas. These sensors may be built into other devices, such as mobile handsets and vehicles or may be standalone. Sensors need not only be inanimate; sentient beings may gather and provide rich sets of data.

Critical Uncertainty:
Rate of technological evolution for inexpensive, low/self-powered sensors. Also, the time frame of deployment of these sensors once available. Proliferation of ubiquitous wireless network access to enable constant connectivity with the sensors. Contingent on public acceptance of near-constant reporting of data.

Goffman – Individual as Unit

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

In Erving Goffman’s “The Individual as Unit” (chapter one of his book “(Relations in Public)”) the person is examined as a discreet component in a larger sociological context. The role of individuals are described as a vehicular unit or as a participation unit.

I found it interesting to classify an individual as a vehicle, and further that he classifies vehicles (and their mobility) by the encasement of the driver:
“The more protective the shell, the more, on the whole, the unit is restricted to simple movements.” Thus pedestrians and cyclists would have freer movements than an operator of a car or bus. Despite this, he asserts that many of the same techniques to navigate traffic are shared by all “vehicles” – whether on a sidewalk or street.

As participation units much of Goffman’s assertions about social norms seem dated, although I found interesting the comment about “socially noteworthy” events such as “someone who had come to a party accompanied leaves alone or ‘with someone different’”.

Framing Questions:
Several examples given in the individual as vehicular unit describe a cone of attention, where there the subject scans ahead to identify safe passage and possible conflicts. How do Goffman’s theories about interpersonal space hold up when applying Edward T. Hall’s theories of Proxemics? (The notion of distance categories – Intimate, Personal, Social , Public)

Most of Goffman’s examples for vehicular units occurred outside, in public space such as a sidewalk. How would these dynamics play out differently indoors (where space is likely far more limited), in a private space like a home (amongst participants who are familiar with another) or in a semi-public space like an office or a university campus?

Is the division of participation units into “singles” and “withs” too simplistic? Are there more nuanced relationships given by different numbers of participants? Think of the increasing complexity in connections as group size grows. (Shirky, “Here Comes Everybody”, p.27)

If we consider bodies as vehicles moving through a space, does that alter the way we design interface? Considerations about mobility, attention and space?

How does an experience change when viewed as a “single” versus as a member of a “with”? (As a member of a large group?) In what way should an interface be designed to accommodate both?
(Look at the Hard Rock Cafe Beatles touchscreen)

Can “intention display” (also called “externalization” and “body gloss” in the article) be incorporated into a project? Can the misdirection of this type of full-body expression be used to generate surprise or confusion?

BarCampNYC4 presentation

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

BarCampNYC4 was hosted by ITP on May 30-31st. It was a great event – I’d highly recommend going to another one.

I did a presentation titled “Using openFrameworks for iPhone App Development” which I think went well, although it was quite dense. Can’t be helped, I suppose. The walk-through of getting set up with openFrameworks has been previously posted, and is also available on ITPedia. Below is an embedded video of the presentation thanks to Mark B… and New Work City. (more…)