I am teaching a number of programming and project courses for the bachelor programme Creative Technology.
module 1: Programming with Processing
module 2: Programming and Physical Computing (with E. Dertien)
module 4: Algorithms in Creative Technology
module 6: Programming for Interaction
module 8: Hybrid Worlds
pre-TOM: Creative Exploration of Art, Science and Technology
Introduction to Computer Science
Programming with Structures
Real Time Systems 2
Distributed and Concurrent Programming
Creative Technology Design Method
The method of Creative Technology is in the first place user centered, most often starting from a user problem, sometimes having technology as a starting point (“how can this technology be used (as a building block) for a user application?”). It has phases of divergence and convergence, and is also iterating on building and evaluating prototypes in short cycles. User experience is a crucial aspect, next to functionality. Accordingly, user evaluations in the end of the design process are standard.
The tasks here are to identify, illustrate and justify this design process, making it part of a definition of Creative Technology as a new field of its own. It is also a step in making the contribution, perspective and questions of Creative Technology in a context of its neighbouring disciplines, such as Interaction Design, Human Media Interaction, Industrial Design, Computer Science or Electrical Engineering.
Education in Creative Technology has design as focus, technology forms part of a toolbox and is not a goal in its own. This results in a shift of learning goals for education wrt “classical” engineering. On one hand the technology content offered has to be adjusted. On the other hand, we need teaching methods that stimulate students to actively integrate technology in their personal toolboxes, i.e. know how to apply it in a practical and creative sense. Another challenge is that design subjects are inherently feedback intensive, and not scalable straightforwardly. We have to identify teaching methods that allow to provide quality for the students minimising overhead, by, e.g., giving students a more active role.
Interaction paradigms of wearables are still too much derived from computer interaction and smart phones. What we are interested in are interaction paradigms that take our normal movements and interaction with garment into account, like in the example where pulling the sleeves over the wrists switches on the heating.
Actuators in wearables are much less investigated than sensors. What kind of feedback is possible? What, if we do not want full led-illumination? There is a playground to explore, defined by personal space, fashion aspects, low cognitive load, context sensitivity, application domains and more.
Coaching and feedback. Wearables are close to our skin, feedback can be very direct and have higher impact by working more physically than cognitive (like statistics on the smartphone). What kind of feedback is necessary to have impact, without being annoying, is one of the questions to address here.
|Room||ZI 2031, Zilverling|
|Phone||+31 53 489 4061|