The last week was spend on getting iButtons, real tags that contain a serial code, to work with the roomba.
On Thursday, it all worked smoothly: tags are now coupled to behaviour, different tags result in different behaviour, perfect!
(the mini computer that is going to drive the whole has not yet arrived, so I’m not showing pictures/movies yet)

One immediate conclusion was the importance of context: if a tag with ‘wall-following’ is attached, the roomba nicely follows the wall. In a living room, with couches, sofas and tables, this behaviour changes radically of course: the roomba follows everything.
Here, the tag clearly does not ‘comply’ anymore, as it is not wall-following, but more object tracing?

The next focus will be on these ‘tags’: the visual appearances to the roomba, in order to change behaviour.

behaviour, exploration, ibuttons, roomba, tags Hide

Following my initial explorations, I moved on to some 4D sketching: low-fidelity prototypes that allowed quick user evaluation, and gave me the chance to become familiar with the platforms that are used here as well.

E-puck robots are little robots with a lot of sensors that can drive around, make sound and make light. Easily programmable in C, they allow quick prototyping and exploration. My goal again: explore how direct manipulation can be used to influence the robot’s behaviour. Using my previous ‘analysis’, I created the following problem space:

For all 12 combinations, different sorts of influencing behaviour were created. Eventually, three robots have been programmed, in combination with a puzzle. For each of the robots, the created accessories had to be used to program the robot so it would succeed in the puzzle.

1: guiding + sensors: this robot uses four sensors (left, right, front, back) to detect proximity. If something is nearby, the robot will drive in the opposite direction. This way, by using gestures, the robot can be guided in a certain direction. Using the accessoires, it is possible to cover a sensor, making the robot blind on that site; this will allow the robot to move past obstacles.

2: cooking + actuators: this robot has no sensors, and all it does is moving in a straight line. By using a wire to attach to the robot and a series of poles, the robot can be programmed to drive a certain pattern; for example, just connecting the wire to one pole will make the robot drive in circles.

3: aiming+ configuration: this robot has no sensors, and only drives in a straight line. It’s configuration can be changed by adding a wooden stick; this way, certain paths become inaccessible, while driving behaviour changes. For example, when a small obstacle is detected, the robot will drive around and towards it.

Eventually, some quick user evaluations & discussion with my coaches Ylva Fernaeus and Mattias Jacobsson gave me new insights about the signifier-signified relation: the sign that indicates the behaviour of the robot, the user’s interpretation of both the sign and the actions it provokes, and the general direction to continue in.

4d, behaviour, evaluation, exploration, prototyping, robots Hide

In order to get a grasp on actDresses, robots, intelligence, and everything surrounding it, I started with some quick exploration.

My goal was to explore how you can influence the behaviour of a robot, by using physical and direct adaptations to the appearance of the robot. After locking myself in the workshop for half a day, a series of small little ‘robots’ with accessories had emerged. Robots with blindfolds, movable ear-sensors and attachable sails are just a few of the examples.

robots_explo1.001

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 19

After analysing and discussing these first explorations, I created the following ’structure’:

Direct manipulation

- altering sensors -> alter ‘handicap‘ of robot -> alter behaviour
- altering actuators -> alter ‘degrees of freedom‘ of robot -> alter behaviour
- altering configuration -> alter ‘capabilities‘ of robot -> alter behaviour
If we look at the examples, it is clear that direct manipulation is key here: one physically directly alters the robot in order to physically directly alter the behaviour.

direct manipulation of the robot = direct manipulation of the behaviour
robot = behaviour
signifier = robot
signified = behaviour
signifier = signified

signifier = signified = robot = behaviour

Influencing behaviour
There are four levels of influencing behaviour, when telling a robot what to do
- guiding: giving commands at every step
- cooking: giving a list of directions that the robot has to follow
- aiming: giving an aim that the robot has to fulfill
- stating: giving a certain behavioral state for the robot

Publicity
Commands or programming that is given to a robot, can be visualised on three levels
- public
- semi-public
- private

actDresses, actuators, appearance, behaviour, direct manipulation, exploration, influencing, sensors Hide