CCRMA User Blog Posts
All CCRMA users can create blog posts that will display here.
CREATE A BLOG ENTRY
CREATE A BLOG ENTRY
ch 5 reading response
I am interested in Artful Design’s Principle 5.4: Bodies Matter! The idea that our body is the ultimate instrument is true right now, and it’s interesting to reflect on how this concept has transformed over years of technological development. We of course started creating music with our voice and hands and limbs, and technology has opened up the scope of that. Page 210 displays some common methods of physical musical actions, like shaking, striking, plucking, tapping, sliding, and twisting. These all existed with rudimentary instruments, and the introduction of synthetic and electronic music has changed the game.ch 4 reading response
I am drawn to Artful Design’s Principle 4.5: Design things with a computer that would not be possible without! This design concept is one that I always try to employ when thinking about technology. Taking the example of the widespread switch into video conferencing, I’ve thought a lot about what integral elements of human communication are impossible to emulate over Zoom. While Zoom does have its limitations, I realized that it’s a lot more exciting to think about what Zoom communication can enable that we ordinarily would not be able to do in person. Tools like breakout rooms, screen sharing, screen overtaking, and even the ease of games exist, and it’s so important to realize that!ch 3 reading response
I really like Artful Design’s Principle 3.5: Build complexity from simplicity. Design can often feel extremely intimidating when only the final product is observed and the process of creation is obscured. Just like the example in the book of the rainbow flares, complexity is just an amalgamation of many simple building blocks, and knowing that makes both design and engineering feel accessible. In my computer science background, a fundamental concept underlying all of problem solving is the process of breaking down a complex problem into many simple problems, and building back up to a complex solution. This process demystifies relationships between moving parts, gives you clarity on what steps a problem requires, and allows for more modularization and scalability.ch 2 reading response
I am struck by principle 2.1: Design for play and delight. Before reading this chapter, I associated artful design with perfectly intuitive functionality, as well as a standard of aesthetic that makes the experience sublime. Considering the zipper pencil bag example from the previous chapter, I agreed that design can inspire wonder in a user. What I didn’t consider, however, is the utility of play. Even using the word utility here somewhat defeats the purpose of this design principle. A pleasurable experience is “productive” in itself and does not necessarily need to have traditional utility to be valuable! This principle makes me reflect on the best designs I’ve come across in my life, and how they optimize for play and delight.ch 1 reading response
From this week's reading, I'd like to respond to meta-principle 1.4: expect no more precision than a subject naturally affords. As a CS major primarily occupying spaces that are analytical and data-driven, I think this sentiment is often lost on my peers, and to some degree, myself. The book’s comparison of mathematical rigor vs. philosophical rigor is particularly pertinent here, because things that don’t provide explicitly measurable value are often overlooked. I can even take the example of computer science assignments that are graded on both style and functionality. Since functionality can be measured with automated tests that are applied equally to everyone, those points are optimized and weighted accordingly.256A Reading Response #8
This is a response to a definition in Ge Wang’s book Artful Design:
“Definition 8.14: The ‘pi’ shaped individual” (pg. 428)
256A Reading Response #1
*Caution, contains severe nitpicking and strong yet under-argued thoughts*
“Artful design is conscious effort to elevate that natural process to a higher discipline” (pg. 52)
Does design need to be elevated in order to reach the sublime? Or should it’s “sublimeness” rather be revealed? Was it not always there? And should the majority of our work to experience it not be in adjusting, and readjusting, and readjusting our framing and perspective?
256A Reading Response #7
This is a response to a principle in Ge Wang’s book Artful Design:
“Principle 7.7: A little anonymity can go a long way” (pg. 363)
256A Reading Response #6
This is a response to a principle in Ge Wang’s book Artful Design:
“Principle 6.20 The Tofu Burger Principle” (pg. 341)
256A Reading Response #5
This is a response to a principle in Ge Wang’s book Artful Design: “Principle 5.5 Have your machine learning – And the human in the loop!” (pg. 218)
Hey Robot! Share! Please?
Machine learning is generally structured around “tasks”, but never “tools”. There are countless papers and competitions about which algo or model can classify the emotion of a facial expression, but far fewer on what to do with that. While this feels like a classic case of “we were so preoccupied with if we could, we never stopped to ask if we should”, it gets at something a little deeper I think:
Machine learning is hard!
