Whilst some aspects of the project could have gone better, overall I consider the project to be a success.
We had many issues with settling on an idea to begin with, although we knew roughly the technologies we wanted to work with, it took a few weeks of discussion and planning to fully settle on an idea. We went from building small robots with limited user interaction to a fully fledged user-interaction based installation piece; as well as moving from small scale organically-inspired projection mapping to abstract visualisations within the IVT.
Naturally, the project was subject to many changes as time went on. This is a natural part of the process; although it does mean our project is quite different from the initial idea.
Below are some of the choices we made and why I feel they were effective:
- Heavy concept/research basis: Our project had a strong background of research behind it – Every choice has reasoning
- Immersive vision theater (IVT): We chose to use this as it offers full surround of visuals and soundscapes – much like your personality reflects the way you view the world. bring it into physical sense .etc We chose to use the IVT because it reflects the feeling of being “inside” the head of the user. We also made use of the surround sound system, adding a further dimension to the experience.
- All in one interface: Instead of using two interfaces ( Pi for input of user data, and Mobile app to change head colour) we decided to bundle this into one input (Pi). This works much better as it merges both sides of the project, helping to keep the immersion of the user.
- Multiple wireless networks: The use of both WiFi connections and Bluetooth for one seamless connection. This helps to keep the piece as all-in-one. Whilst this could have been done in a serial connection (see previous post) we already had the Bluetooth framework in place, so we decided to make use of it rather than change the code again.
What could have gone better:
- ‘Plan B’ for internet connection: internet access in the dome is unreliable and setting up Eduroam can be difficult on certain platforms. The only difficulty with this is finding a workaround that still satisfies the requirements of the brief.
- More user inputs: Make the visualization take more user’s data inputs at display them at once. This means changing both the way the visualization works and how the database read works, but would be implemented if the project carried on longer.
- Stronger visuals: Have much more organic and interesting visuals to watch that incorporate more inputs.
Although we had some issues with group dynamics and the overall flow of the process, we were able to work around this and effectively work together to create something we are all proud of!