Bittersuite (Week 4) — Micro UX
We still had to define a space and potentially prepare a first prototype before the mid-point review at the end of the week. We had a lot of work to do!
Designers: Kate Chernysheva, Ula Rodakowska, Sebastian Ervi
Selecting a space
After having visited the nearest sandbox and prepared design ideas to present to Kate and Ula, I realised that we were not on the same line within the team. In my mind, we would have chosen a space according to an identified design opportunity. After internal discussions, I realised that Kate and Ula were focused on selecting a space first and foremost, before exploring it in more detail and generating ideas from that micro research. After a lot of hesitation and back-and-forths, we ended up with agreeing on selecting the body as a space to change the acoustic properties of.
Brainstorming
After having (finally!) selected our space, we started brainstorming on ideas because we didn’t have time to analyse our bodies further, interpret the results and then design a prototype before our mid-point review. To kick off our brainstorm, we used the Crazy 8 method which consists in generating 8 ideas in 8 minutes each. From the ideas that we got, I then presented two design ideas to my team: using body movements to produce music, and speculating on the future of body sounds in a technological context. Despite being excited about these, my teammates didn’t seem to be fond of neither of the ideas.
Experimenting and prototyping
The idea of analysing body sounds immediately made me think about the stethoscope, used in healthcare to listen to someone’s heart and lungs.
When experimenting with the stethoscope, the heartbeat was the most obvious sound of the body that we identified. Thus for our first prototype, we wanted to record someone’s heartbeat and, with a computer software like Logic Pro X or Guitar Rig, translate the sound of the heartbeat in real-time to produce music.
With the help of the Creative Technology Lab at LCC, we tried to record the sound coming from the stethoscope using different microphones and setups , but it didn’t seem to work anyhow! I believe that it might have worked with a condenser microphone because of its specific properties, but LCC couldn’t provide us one.
However, using a contact microphone that the Sound Arts section of LCC provided us was a success. It worked! When experiencing with the device, we noticed how voice was transmitted in an interesting way, the receiver hearing the emitter’s voice as if it came from their own self. Our classmates Sanjana and Ana, who passed by, tested the device and found it really interesting because of this new way of hearing another person.
This is how we decided to design a communication device between two people for our first prototype to present for the mid-point review. With sight-covering helmets on, and noise-cancelling headphones, we allowed two persons to communicate in a new way by hearing each other’s heartbeat and voice in a new way.
Mid-point review
We presented our work and our prototype to our class, tutors and to Stephanie from Bittersuite, and received valuable feedback. The presentation also allowed us to test our prototype for the first time. All in all, we learnt that the technological limitations made people confused because the heartbeat and the voice were not heard clearly enough, even without face masks on. We were congratulated of creating a thing, but were told that the experience itself hasn’t really been designed yet, which I agree with as it lacks depth for the moment.
Our tutors John Fass and Alaistair Steele made us realise that we had created a new space with our prototype — the one between two individuals when they communicate. This made us excited and was something we now wanted to explore during the following week.
Bibliography
Cervellin, G. and Lippi, G., 2011. From music-beat to heart-beat: a journey in the complex interactions between music, brain and heart. European journal of internal medicine, 22(4), pp.371–374.
Lupton, E. and Lipps, A. eds., 2018. Sonic Branding. The senses: Design beyond vision. Chronicle Books, p.156.
Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Larsson, P., Väljamäe, A., Västfjäll, D. and Kleiner, M., 2010. When room size matters: acoustic influences on emotional responses to sounds. Emotion, 10(3), p.416.
Images my own unless stated otherwise
