Time Frame: January to June 2024
Project Team Members : Brittney Allen, Benedicte Knudson, and Katie McIntyre
Tools : Physical Prototyping
BACKGROUND
The exhibit demonstrates cymatics, a modal vibrational physics phenomena. This phenomena is usually demonstrated with a Chladni plate, a plate and a thin coating of particles, visible patterns emerge as the frequency of sound change. We demonstrated this principle with lasers, lights, and bubbles to embrace the tinkering spirit and effectively encourage experimental play.
Over the course of 9 weeks, we went through a number of rounds of internal play testing and onsite testing at the museum, iterating in between.
After our final round of changes, the system still required a certain level of guidance for the audience throughout. A simplified, standalone system is currently on display at the museum.
Internal Playtesting 1
Prototyped two sets of low fidelity controls and an extremely low fidelity prototype of the stand to get feedback on the kinds of interactions, sliding buttons, pressing buttons, or a gearshift like slider that had notches on frequencies that produced cool patterns. We were satisfied with the size of the stand. We wanted the synthesizer to support more open play as opposed to the guided play the gearshift provided and feedback from our peers supported us moving in that direction.
Internal Playtesting session 2
For the second playtesting session, we were focusing on the technical part of our exhibit. We had prepared a laser setup and a bubble setup to test. We also brought in a real synthesizer which allowed experimentation with buttons and knobs. Testers were intrigued by the phenomena and were experimenting as we had hoped using the buttons and knobs. The bubble solution allowed us to create a bubble. We were using a single flashlight as the light source.
CMA Onsite Playtesting 1
For our first onsite testing session, we created housing for the speaker setups out of cardboard to minimize movement caused by the frequencies. The technology was working successfully. We were using a single flashlight to demonstrate the phenomena with the bubble. Both children and adults were fascinated by the phenomena and were able to play with the synthesizers, but we took note that there were an overwhelming number of buttons.
Internal Playtesting session 3
For the third playtesting session we created a housing prototype for the entire installation. We were looking to receive feedback on the module and our synthesizer that was now simplified and on an iPad. The interface was relatively static and upon feedback we realized there needed to be some feedback. We were still testing using a single flashlight, but after receiving feedback, we decided to purchase small finger lights so multiple children could interact with the bubble at once. We had also decided to include a spot for straws so children could blow their own bubble when it inevitably popped.
Onsite Playtesting session 2
We had medium fidelity prototypes of the housing. For the bubble setup, we provided the finger lights in multiple colors which was exciting for both adults and children. The updated iPad synthesizer and the feedback it provided got positive responses from our users. Children and adults were able to grasp the concept and a number stayed for a while and asked questions. The housing needed some adjustments. With the bubble setup, the iPad partially blocked the bubble. For smaller children, the iPad could have blocked the bubble entirely. For the laser setup, the housing blocked the speaker setup making it difficult to see what exactly was happening. We decided to not provide straws to the children.
CMA Exhibition
For our third and final testing session at the museum, we had high fidelity housing and the iPad synthesizer had some minor updates but remained relatively unchanged. We attached finger lights to the housing of the bubble setup but midway took them off. Children and adults were curious about the exhibit and remained engaged for an extended period of time. Users were curious and asked in depth questions. The speaker setups were raised above the iPads which greatly improved visibility but the laser setup still suffered due to the box holding the laser in place. In an effort to make the exhibit more self sustaining, we attempted a “permanent” bubble which didn’t work and adjustments were made.
Areas for further improvement
The housing was still an area for improvement. The housing sat atop a table and in a real museum context, it should stand alone. While playtesting, the laser was displayed on a poster provided by the museum--we hope to have something more permanent on which to shine the laser, and also prevent any eye damage.
The biggest area for improvement is figuring out how to make the exhibit self sustaining. The museum does not have the resources to have an exhibit attendant. There were no technology or laser hiccups during testing. The bubble requires a bit more attention. It popped a number of times and requires a bit of skill to fix. Our poster didn’t have any explanation as to what the phenomenon was or how the exhibit demonstrated it, so we were providing demonstrations and explanations to users.
The final installation.
