w3 - the progressive dinner
- Sophia Schulz
- 4 days ago
- 20 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
DESN800 // 17/03/26
Intentions for This Week's Making
Reflecting on my making outputs and feedback from the previous week, I've enjoyed beginning to explore the spatial aspects of my work, tying in an environmental focus such as natural features of trees and rocks embedded in the urban environments I am situating my work within. Although my research question at this stage doesn't specify a particular focus on combining the natural and urban environment through interactive installations, my peers responded positively to these environmental considerations, and I think this points to a broader interest in the narrative of urban design that my work could tell. One peer also pointed out an existing installation in Auckland called Waimahara by lead artist Graham Tipene (2024), located at the Myers Park underpass, which uses lights, sound, and interaction via singing waiata to communicate the environmental and cultural narrative of the stream Te Waihorotiu buried underneath the area. A particular insight from this work is that its narrative reflects the place it is situated within, something my previous outputs have been lacking as I tried to incorporate environmental elements from different places, leading to confusion about how they are related. This also ties back to feedback I received from instructors on my first two weeks of making, where recommendations were given to explore more locally-based narratives (whether historical, environmental, social, material, economical or cultural). With this in mind, my goal is to focus more on both the narrative of my work and how this narrative connects back to the place the work is situated within.
I've also enjoyed exploring the materiality and physicality of my work and employing this aspect to drive interaction, and feel that my peers have responded positively to these aspects as well. One peer particularly enjoyed the moving sculpture elements in one of my models, showing a broader interest in embodied interaction (movement in 3D space) on top of the tangible interaction I've so far explored through different materials. However, due to the size and scale constraints of weeks 1 and 2, I have been mostly limited to creating representational forms (such as small scale models or material tests), making it difficult to fully explore the more "3D" aspects of interaction and immersion. Peers expressed interest in seeing more large scale work, as they have mostly had to imagine what interactions would be like rather than getting to try it out themselves. Additionally, an important aspect of my intended research method is carrying out user testing with full-scale prototypes that give a better sense of the intended outcomes of the work. Thus, given the looser scale and quantity outputs of this week, I decided to focus on creating one full-size interaction piece that would allow me to properly test aspects of my research question at scale.
Some other points of reflection from peer feedback and my outputs are as follows:
I've really enjoyed the idea of instilling wonder and awe through my work. For example, I evaluated from verbal reactions that peers from the first week felt wonder and awe when interacting with the light-up flowers I made. Although not necessarily central to my research question, this particular emotional reaction may be useful for encouraging engagement and a sense of immersion in users.
Peers from week 2 gave feedback that a "sense of play" may not be particularly relevant to my work. I agree that it may be detracting from the overall focus of what I'm researching, so I've decided to drop this aspect from now on, while still acknowledging that (similar to the sense of wonder and awe) it will likely come up as a subconscious influence in my work as I often take inspiration from children's museum exhibits.
I've also enjoyed producing works that intend to bring people together, such as through multiple touch points for interaction or providing opportunities to dwell and explore the space. Depending on the type of engagement I ultimately proceed with, this aspect may be central to my work (eg. encouraging social engagement in a space).
I want to continue building on my newly-developed skills of projection mapping and using real-time data to drive interactions, as well as employing physical forms and materials to ground the digital realm in the physical world. I will aim to combine these aspects this week with the full-scale work I produce.
Contexts and Distribution Channels
I chose the contexts narrative and environment for this week, tying back to my reflections above on communicating the narrative of the place my work is situated within to promote engagement with such space, as well as the environment the work communicates or creates through transformation of the space it's situated within. Because my eventual goal is to choose a site to design around, but don't yet have a site picked and have limited time to explore potential sites this week, I chose to focus on an environmental narrative situated within the broader Auckland CBD region for now.
For distribution channels, I chose physical and local, once again empasising the importance of physicality and materiality in the interactions that I've been exploring so far, as well as the local nature of how my work will be situated and what it aims to communicate. This also connects to my intended target audience: I hope to reach people situated locally around the site of my work, and reach them through physical presence rather than through purely virtual or digital means. This exact target audience will depend on where my work ends up being situated (based on the chosen site to design around).
Process and Methods
Ideation
For this full-scale artefact, I would essentially be developing two artefacts in communication with each other: 1. an object, surface, etc. embodying the physical realm, and 2. programmed visuals embodying the digital realm. The 2nd "artefact" would be projection mapped onto the 1st, and interacting with the physical hardware embedded in the 1st would influence the behaviour of the 2nd, thus creating an overall combined physical/digital artefact in the end.
As a starting point, I decided to continue developing a form I've been exploring over the past two weeks: an interactive weaving with conductive touch points embedded throughout. This would thus provide the physical object ("realm") for physical interaction and provide a means for digitally interfacing with the object. My general motivation for focusing on weaving as both a form/object and as a presentation of materials was detailed in my previous blog post, where I discussed weaving's historical significance for storytelling and bringing people together. This thus ties in the term amalgamate and connects back to my reflection above of wanting to bring people together for positive engagement with my work. Additionally, I enjoy the tangible focus that weaving has for interaction, with different materials and textures that can be woven together to feel and explore. I also decided to focus on presenting the weaving in a more cohesive, "finalised" way by paying attention to the frame it's both woven and suspended on.
Size constraint implemented at this stage: With the selection of weaving as my final physical form, I wanted to create an object large enough to projection map onto with sufficient detail, while keeping the scale feasible to achieve within a week. I chose to keep it less than a metre in width and length, but at least 0.7m across to be large enough for more space to add touch points and project onto (this exact number was arbitrarily chosen).
Through brainstorming and ideation, my initial concept was as follows:
Create a large weaving suspended on a frame,
Embed conductive touch points (at least 2) throughout the weaving (using leftover copper strips from last week),
Projection map onto the weaving, with visuals programmed in TouchDesigner, using data from the touch sensors:
When two or more sensors are touched, digitally draw lines between the sensors following the warp and weft lines to communicate the narrative of bringing people together through weaving.
Research into built and natural environment surrounding Auckland CBD
As explained previously, I wanted to incorporate an environmental narrative into my work, so I started by researching visual depictions of the environment in and around Auckland CBD. This led me to explore contour and building footprint maps through Auckland Council's GeoMaps (n.d., retrieved March 13th), and comparing the two maps revealed the influence that buildings have on the contours, thus obscuring the original shape of the land that existed before the buildings were built. I decided I wanted to incorporate these maps into the frame that the weaving would be suspended on, so I exported vector files of the contour and building footprints which I then laser cut into the two vertical pieces of the frame (Figure 1). I chose areas of the map located beside Symonds Street for a more personal connection with my work, given I study and used to live along this street, and because the shape of the resulting map suited the shape of the wood.
I also explored maps provided by Tiaki Tāmaki Makaurau (Conservation Auckland) that show the different classified ecosystems around Auckland (n.d., retrieved March 13th). Focusing on the CBD area revealed the lack of natural habitats in the dense cityscape — even Albert Park wasn't classified as one, potentially due to it not being an "indigenous ecosystem" (Tiaki Tāmaki Makaurau, n.d.) but rather an artificial one created by settlers. Otherwise, I enjoyed seeing the diversity of ecosystems in the broader area surrounding the CBD as evident through the many different colours used to visually classify and differentiate them. I decided to showcase these ecosystems and their locations around the CBD region through projection mapping the map as a backdrop for the programmed visuals (Figure 3).
Overall, I noticed how two aspects of the environment were already at play in my work: the built environment, as represented by the contour and building footprint maps laser cut into the frame, and the natural environment, as represented by the map of different ecosystems. Both show evidence of my exploration into incorporating place-based elements in my work's narrative, helping to situate my work more locally.
Creating the frame and weaving
To create the frame that the weaving would be woven and suspended on, I created a CAD model and used this to determine the dimensions of the wood pieces to be cut, before then laser cutting on them and assembling them with screws (Figure 1).
Around this time, I also soldered wires to leftover copper strips from last week, creating three touch points to be incorporated into the weaving at the end. I chose three because this would force interactions from more than one person if the touch points were spread out far enough in the weaving, but would minimise the number of different parts to test in case they needed troubleshooting (especially because I found the soldering to be quite difficult and I didn't entirely trust the wired connections).
With the finished frame, I nailed along the top and bottom edges and wove some scrap yarn around the nails to form the warp thread. I also collected scrap textiles from the RAU Textiles Lab, specifically collecting white or similarly coloured materials so that they would reflect light better and be more suitable for projection mapping. I cut these scraps into approximately 1-inch wide strips and wove them into the warp to form the wefts (Figure 2).
As a result, I found myself implementing the following material constraints: I used reusable or reclaimed materials wherever possible, including the textile and yarn scraps, copper strips, wood and, as discussed below, electronics from previous projects. Considering the resuability of these materials meant most of my work could be disassembled and reused or recycled (eg. the solder between wires could be removed so that the electronics, wires or copper could be reused for future projects, the textiles in the weaving could be pulled out and reused, and the screws in the wood could be removed so that the wood itself can be reused). This mentality likely comes from my experience trying to reduce costs in previous projects by reusing electronics and using reclaimed materials wherever possible, but has also carried over into considering how my work could be disassembled, reused, or could even biodegrade with the environment it is to be situated within. Although not a core focus of my research question, I believe this consideration is still important for incorporating installations into urban space to examine whether such installations will have (or even intend to have) a permanent effect on the space, and whether this effect would be positive (eg. lasting positive social change) or negative (eg. a detrimental environmental impact).
I had briefly considered attempting to source materials directly from the CBD, such as by visiting local op shops and asking for scrap clothing, but this ended up not being feasible in the given timeframe. I will keep this as a consideration for future projects to further situate my work locally through the materials used in the work itself.
Developing the projection mapped visuals
My plan for the projection mapped visuals was to create them in TouchDesigner, a program I was already familiar with, particularly because it can interface with real-time data such as that from microcontrollers (which I would use to get the data from the copper touch points) and because I was aware it had projection mapping capabilities. I used the node "kantanmapper" as it was the simplest method for mapping onto 2D surfaces such as my weaving. My initial idea was to create a line-drawing algorithm where lines would connect between different points being touched, but this ended up being too difficult to implement in the given timeframe. After spending over two hours attempting to create it, I pivoted to using a boids simulation I had previously developed (essentially a flocking algorithm that mimics the behaviour of groups of birds). Initially the boids would circle around the individual touch points, highlighting where to interact with the weaving, but would travel between (and thus "connect") two or more points if they were touched (Figure 3 and Figure 4). This method was much more feasible to achieve in the given week and also reinforced my environmental narrative: not only would the touch points encourage connection between people through visually highlighting literal connections between them as they interacted with the work, but would also encourage connection to the wider environment through showcasing the effects people (particularly the efforts of more than one person) can have on the movements of nature and whether such movements remain closed off and localised or can spread to different areas.
I also ensured there were signifiers for interaction embedded in the work, helping to inform users on what to do without having to verbally explain it. The movement of the boids around the untouched touch points help indicate where to interact, and the boids will respond with bigger movements around these points if they are touched in isolation. The material difference between the textiles and copper at these points also aids in showing where to interact. The most obvious response is when two or more touch points are touched simultaneously, allowing the boids to travel between them, which likely unlocks the greatest understanding around the work and the interactions it affords. I still struggle with being able to nonverbally communicate how my work can be interacted with (this may be particularly difficult in a classroom setting, where people generally assume others' work can't be touched without permission), and would like to further explore how spontaneous and natural interactions can be facilitated in future work due to its significance in publicly accessible space.
As previously explained, I added projections of the map of ecosystems surrounding Auckland CBD as a backdrop to reinforce the enviornmental narrative. I used this map to inform where the touch points were placed in the weaving, centering them on notable ecosystems (while still maintaining some separation between them), once again driving home the theme of interconnectedness through both people and the environment. My intention was also to highlight the lack of ecosystems in the CBD region itself through this visual separation, but I did not have time to explore this further (and unfortunately had to skew the map to fit within my weaving dimensions, as I had not initially constructed the frame with this particular map in mind).
Integration and installation setup
With the physical and digital elements of the work completed separately, I now focused on integrating them through embedding the copper touch points in the weaving and using two ESP32 microcontrollers to take the data from the touch points and communicate it to my laptop running the TouchDesigner program (Figure 5). I tested this setup at home using the same projector as last week's spatial design experiments, but this time using TouchDesigner so everything was integrated into one program.
In anticipation of setting this up in class on Tuesday, I considered how my setup could reduce the number of wires running between the projector and weaving, given that these two elements had to be physically separated by a few metres for proper projecting. Thus, I used wireless communication to eliminate wires between the microcontroller taking the data from the touch points and the microcontroller passing this data on to my laptop running TouchDesigner. as a result, I only needed a power cable running from the projector to the wall, which I could tape down to minimise tripping hazards in the classroom.
I also communicated my intended setup to my instructors ahead of time, using diagrams and photos such as those in Figure 6, to ensure it would be feasible and reduce disruption to others in the classroom. Ultimately, planning the installation setup became good practice for considering installation work in general and how to reduce disruptions to passersby or other users of the space, helping to better integrate the work into the space it's being presented in.
After presenting my work in class (Figure 6), I set up the installation in the Photo Studio to document my work in more ideal lighting settings and build up skills using the lighting and camera equipment in this space (Figure 7). I used two softbox lights on either end to highlight my subjects interacting with the work while minimising light on the projection itself. These photos can be seen below (Figures 8-18) along with a video (Figure 19) of interactions with the work in real time. A huge thank you to my classmates for helping with the lighting configuration and for modelling in the photos and videos I took!
Figures 8-18: Photos taken in Photo Studio of classmates' interactions with the installation (taken with permission from classmates for online distribution).
Summary of Time Rationing
Wednesday, March 11th - 2 HOURS:
1 hour verbal and written ideation
1 hour exploring topology maps, modelling frame for loom in CAD
Thursday, March 12th - 1.5 HOURS:
30 min finding scrap fabrics from RAU Textiles Lab
1 hour laser cutting topology maps onto cut wood pieces (cut by Angus in 3D lab)
Friday, March 13th - 2.5 HOURS:
30 min assembling frame and soldering wires to copper strips
2 hours testing programming in TouchDesigner
Saturday, March 14th - 2 HOURS:
2 hours nailing into frame and weaving the warp thread
Sunday, March 15th - 3 HOURS:
3 hours programming in TouchDesigner and testing projection mapping
Monday, March 16th - 8 HOURS:
4 hours weaving the wefts
30 minutes soldering more wire to copper strips
3 hours 30 minutes testing final projection mapping setup and touch inputs
TOTAL: 19 HOURS
300-Word Narrative (Used in Class)
My research topic explores how interactive installations can transform under-utilised urban public spaces to improve people’s emotional connection to each other and their wider urban context. This week, implementing previous feedback, I created a full-scale installation to enable a more in-depth exploration of the making process and the interactions driven between the work and audience participants.
With consideration given to the ingredients solid, processed and viscous, as well as the distribution channel physical, the work takes on a multi-dimensional and multi-textural form, driving interactions that rely on the work’s existence in the physical realm. Through digitally processing the touch inputs, users’ interactions have a direct impact on the fluid visual behaviour of the work. These interactions also tell an underlying nonlinear and temporal story, implementing the context of narrative, through the connections the digital projections make with each other when multiple inputs are pressed. This behaviour also has the effect of bringing people together, requiring at least two users to enact certain behaviour, thereby implementing the term amalgamate. The weaving as a central physical visual also ties these terms together through historical traditions of communal storytelling in weaving practices.
The environmental considerations of the work in terms of visuals and narrative implement the reconstitute, environment and local terms. The projected map depicts the different ecological habitats surrounding the CBD, and the contours and building footprints laser cut into the frame are taken from maps of Symonds Street, implementing a local focus in the visuals of the work. A material constraint I applied was using scrap fabrics for the wefts and leftover items from previous projects, reconstituting them for new use and considering the environmental impact of the resources used in my installation. The flock-like behaviour of the digital interactive projections mimics birds, further emphasising an environmental narrative in my work.
Peer Feedback and Reflection
Presenting my work in class gave me insightful peer feedback that has influenced my considerations for future design work as well as how I might further develop my current research question:
How my peer feedback will inform the development of research question:
Peers showed interest in exploring what invites people to stay or dwell in a place.
One peer suggested researching spaces that people are spontaneously drawn to for different purposes, such as places wherer skaters will skateboard, even when they're not designed as skate parks.
This ties in to my broader interest in establishing a sense of place, such as by adjusting qualities of a space that invite (or deny) certain activities, and whether this sense of place invites people to stay and explore.
This also encourages me to think more deeply about what I want people to get out of the spaces I aim to transform, and why I've chosen under-utilised spaces: I want to make these spaces more meaningful to the people who might pass by them every day, and to get people to think more deeply about these spaces and their wider urban context through spending more time in and interacting with these spaces. This time component may be a useful metric of success for my research question to incorporate.
Peers also emphasised the importance of human engagement and connection with place: the idea that "people bring a space alive."
One peer gave the example of Tauranga, a well-designed space but lacking people to use and explore it.
This gave me insight into two possible approaches I could take with my research question: 1. choosing a space with lots of people but lacking good design for them, or 2. taking a well-designed space that lacks people to use it. This also indicates to me that there are multiple interpretations of "under-utilised spaces" and my research question should choose more specific wording to narrow down my exact approach with the space I intend to choose.
Finally, peers asked to consider how people could be encouraged to interact and involve themselves with such installations.
This feedback links back to my consideration of interactive technologies, and perhaps what specific kinds of technologies could help encourage interaction. So far I've particularly focused on interaction via multidimensional touch in an attempt to move away from traditional 2D touchscreen interfaces, and as a result I wonder whether this particular approach is more effective for inviting interaction (and if so, what reasons there might be for it).
This also ties back to previous reflections on how to facilitate interaction, especially in public space, and how to minimise or eliminate the need for written or verbal instructions. As I continue to use complex digital technologies in my work, it will be important to consider how I might ensure people will want to interact with my work on top of understanding how to.
How my peer feedback will inform writing about my work:
Although my peer feedback this week didn't touch specifically on the way I write about my work, I've noted from previous feedback that writing or explaining my work in a way that is understood by non-technical audiences will likely be important. I'm unsure how to balance the technical and non-technical aspects in my writing, but I presume this balance will shift depending on the purpose of the specific written content and the audience it's intended for. For example, I may have written plaques or descriptions alongside my work to facilitate interactions, which should be easy for others to understand without requiring any specialty knowledge. A plaque may have been useful for displaying this week's work as well because I often found myself verbally explaining the touch inputs so that people know to try them out (although I also noticed people were quick to visually examine the work rather than any written messages next to it, as I had added a "feel free to touch" sign next to it; this may be due to the large scale of the work compared to any writings beside it).
How my peer feedback will inform the exhibition of my work:
My peers briefly discussed the importance of hiding cables from both a safety standpoint and an immersion standpoint. I was glad to have considered the installation setup beforehand so that I could minimise cables running through the room, and these discussions reinforced the importance of these considerations for future work.
How my peer feedback will inform the generation of future design work:
In addition to the previous discussions about facilitating interaction between people and my work, another piece of feedback I received was considering implementing multiple, spread-out interaction points rather than a central point(s) to avoid putting someone on the spot. This spotlight effect and its effects on interaction in public space is also discussed in a paper I've read, which observed which social factors such as embarrassment impact people's desire to engage with interactive displays (Brignull & Rogers, 2003). Waimahara, similar to my work, has a central interaction point (a microphone where people can sing the waiata) in view of other observers in the area, requiring the user to potentially overcome social embarrassment or anxiety to interact. This may be a desirable effect in some installations as is the case in Waimahara by assigning the role of "performer" to the person interacting, but may also negatively hinder interactions in other installations. For future design work, I will try to consider the positions of my touch points as well as the roles they create for those interacting with them, and whether such design helps facilitate positive interactions or ends up hindering them.
Additional feedback I received as well as examples to look into:
Peers suggested looking at spaces in nature that have been intentionally designed, such as parks and resorts, to consider what encourages people to engage with and enjoy those spaces.
Peers also discussed the potential temporal nature of my work, and of space in general, which may be another distribution channel for me to consider. A particular insight from this discussion is that spaces are never exactly the same when you return to them, and that events in those spaces can leave physical and non-physical traces. One such example was that of a crime scene, which can leave physical traces (such as DNA) as well as social traces, where the social perception of a space changes after a crime has been committed there. This temporal nature of space and the traces that events, or even designs, can leave behind may be an important consideration for me as I locate my work in public space.
Final reflection on this week's making:
Overall, I'm generally happy with my output for this week as I was able to effectively produce a full-scale interactive work that incorporated more local narratives than my previous work. A surprise outcome of this week was considering installation setup, particularly how to make my work feasible for display in a given space. I also enjoyed continuing to explore employing materiality and form in physical-digital interactions, as well as how to merge the physical and digital realms through expanding my skills in projection mapping, TouchDesigner, and using physical hardware such as microcontrollers and conductive touch surfaces. I believe these methods will continue to be important for my creative practice as I expand my outputs and explorations. For the final week of making, I would like to shift back to spatial design to consider how I might distribute interaction points throughout a space rather than locating them all in one place. I also want to consider how I facilitate interactions with the types of forms, materials, technologies, etc. that I intend for people to engage with, and how such potential interactions are communicated to them. Finally, I would like to further explore incorporating place-based narratives into my work, such as historical or cultural narratives, as I look towards eventually choosing a site to locate my thesis work in. Outside of my creative practice, I intend to do more reading and research to further refine my research question and provide more focus to my design efforts.
Sources:
Auckland Council. (n.d.). GeoMaps [Geographic information system]. Retrieved March 13, 2026, from https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html
Brignull, H., & Rogers, Y. (2003, January 1). Enticing People to Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces.
Tiaki Tāmaki Makaurau. (n.d.). Conservation map [Interactive map]. Retrieved March 13, 2026, from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/dd79effc7c5a44ad946a26d032106662
Tiaki Tāmaki Makaurau. (n.d.). What is an ecosystem? Retrieved March 13, 2026, from https://www.tiakitamakimakaurau.nz/discover-tamaki-makaurau/what-is-an-ecosystem/
Tipene, G. (2024). Waimahara [Public art installation]. Myers Park underpass, Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland Council.
Comments