Interactive Reasoning

Introduction
For our Doing with Theory assignment, I wanted to explore the cognitive process that people undergo when modifying something restricted to a 2D surface (like a screen or paper) compared to a physical model, where touch and manipulation are permitted. My thesis is looking at the relationship between physical and digital craft, and more specifically, the emergence of error within different techniques. A lot of those errors and indeterminacies arise when physical materials are introduced and the creator fails to take those restrictions and limitations into account.

Knowing this, I wanted to see how people approach a simple design problem that can easily be done digitally, but with physical objects. My suspicion was that the physical objects would provide faster and easier results due the nature of people preferring to touch and play with things.

Theory
A large part of my thesis sits within the theory presented by David Pye called The Workmanship of Risk. Pye defines the workmanship of risk as “workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on the judgment, dexterity, and care which the maker exercises as he works” (20). He compares this against the workmanship of certainty, which can always be found in mass production; the quality of the product is always predetermined before anything is actually made. My thesis questions the amount of error (risk) possible in creating a product when utilizing analog and physical techniques, versus something done digitally and computationally. From my experience, I have learned that generating something in CAD and then sending it to be printed through Computer Numerical Controlled systems does not always come out perfectly, despite the fact that computational techniques should be without error if programmed correctly.

The control that you have over a creation process is different between analog and digital. In physical craft, you have control over most of the process and are able to read and sense the material based off of previous and tacit knowledge that you have built up from prior experience. In digital craft, the sense of control and ownership leaves you as you hand off the production to the machine — although the machine may make an error, the fault is still on you since it simply works as a tool on your behalf; however, at this point, you no longer are able to exert the same amount of control and error correction as you would on something physical.

Toolkit Exercise 1
The first part of my testing consisted of two exercises. I would alternate which exercise I would give each participant first, in order to avoid unbiased results.

For the first part, I asked the participant to figure out which of the cubes below would be created when combining the blocks on the upper part of the page.

My goal in this was to see if people would be able to quickly develop a system through visual sight. Physical objects tend to add more elements of distraction due to the haptic feedback being involved, so I wanted to see if visual cues were more reliable.

In the second exercise, I asked the same thing — for the participant to figure out which cube would be created when combining blocks, except this time they had physical blocks in front of them and could play and rotate them as much as they wanted.

With the physical cubes, each person would be able to manipulate them and form the block in real time. I had assumed that having these would make the task easier; however, the results differed per person.

Results
After the 2 exercises were completed, I asked each participant what they found easy or challenging, how they went through the process, and if they preferred the physical version or the paper version. Every single participant commented that they preferred using the objects; however, none of them realized that it had taken them much longer to complete the exercise. Most people created a system from process of elimination, whether that meant seeing which colors were next to each other or seeing a color that is only supplied once drawn twice in the solution. Those who did not create a system right away were much more confused, took longer, and committed more errors.

I found that using the graphic exercise (non-physical) was much faster, but the chance of error earlier on was higher since people spend less time really looking at the objects. A few times, participants would rule out the correct answer early on and then have to go back and re-evaluate later. With the object in hand in the other version, the person would have to really confirm that they could eliminate an option before moving on.

Analysis
This was interesting since it emphasizes the components that I’m looking at in my thesis. I was incorrect in assuming that physical objects would make things faster; however, they did increase accuracy. The physical objects created more of a relationship with the participant, so they would take a more careful and longer look. With the 2D version, participants were faster at eliminating choices and less careful when viewing the different solutions. This is often the case with digital creation, its easy to allow the computational interface to do the work for you, whereas in physical craft, you are forced to spend time and be aware of the risk or error that you are imparting on creating something. Displacing blame is easy to do with a tool like a computer, while physical models provoke more interactive speculation and examination.

Toolkit Exercise 2

Another component that I wanted to evaluate was how people consider computational software language but within a physical context. I stuck with really simple terms such as rotate, scale, array, and reflect since most designers are familiar enough with them in the Adobe Suite, but usually allow the computer program to do the work for them. I did this exercise in two ways — the first being solely on paper and the second through physical models.

The participant would choose actions (rotate, scale, array, and reflect) and then apply the to the given shape. I found that participants had a really difficult time containing the exercise to paper — each person wanted to modify the paper as if it were a 3D object. Some people tore the paper in half, some folded it, and some held it up to the light to see through the paper.

When making the physical pieces, I purposefully made it really difficult to put together — all the angles are different and pieces only fit together when placed one face. The participants were more frustrated by irregular angles but ultimately, they figured out a system again. Once placing a piece down, they would compare each consecutive piece to that previous one in order to make sure they were angled correctly

The participants would again spend much longer on the physical pieces due to the difficult shapes but also because the colors and densities (form) had to match. With an additional element of color and form (as opposed to flat 2D graphics), participants would hold and touch each piece carefully before placing it down.

Although this exercise was more focused on the relationship between computation and physical language, it added to David Pye’s theory of workmanship since the physical models increased the amount of risk involved, but also forced the participants to become more careful and concentrated. Craft moves towards the Workmanship of Certainty with more involvement from technology, and although many people nowadays would assume that software would eliminate error, I find in these exercises that this is not always the case — the error comes from the human, not the computer. Ultimately, it is up to the human to be aware of their capabilities and knowledge to control the tools around them.

Sources
Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship: David Pye, University Press, 1968.