After reading
last weeks papers I had some difficulties relating to how physical programming
could be of use. Of course I understood the examples of possible ways of using
physical programming in the text Fernaeus,
Y. & Jacobsson, M. (2009) they didn’t convince me why this
exploration is worth looking into. I would have preferred some examples where
physical programming was applied to everyday objects. That way it would be
easier to relate, the examples of toys and automotive vacuum cleaners didn’t
strike out as good examples of area use to me. This was questioned during the
seminar, what was seen as possible areas of use for physical programming. Unfortunately didn’t
get any concrete answer, just in general form of anything.
Something
I learned during Ylvas lecture was, what made her project (paper) into research,
or what defines a research in general. By doing this she first distinguished knowledge
from research, in order to define the different purpose. Where knowledge
was things taken notice of, something that already caught attention. While research is taking notice of
something new and sharing it.
During Haibos
lecture he talked about great ideas, and what was essential for a great idea.
He presented Haibos theory – Defining a problem and solving the problem. Where he argued for the weight of
defining a problem. “If you want to be famous or great then you have to
think about the problem, defining the problem.” To get a great solution you
have to define the problem as good as possible to be able to solve it in the
best way.
This had me thinking of the explorative paper Ylva wrote
about with examples of physical programming. The example problems wasn’t
defined, which may have been the reason to why their ideas with physical
programming didn’t appeal to me. But I’m not entirely sure if it’s fair to
apply this to explorative research or is it?
References
Fernaeus,
Y. & Jacobsson, M. (2009). Comics, Robots, Fashion and
Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and
Embedded Interaction.New York: ACM.
Hej Gustav, I understand your point when you mentioned that Ylvas paper lacked in defining the problems. When I remember it right the starting point of the design research was the lack of user-friendly ways to control robotic products. When we assume that the problem outline was crystal clear then we could question if the authors' solution of the problem was the right one?
SvaraRaderaHi Gustav! I think that you understood the main idea that Ylvas presented. As for me it is a very good definintion that knowledge is things taken notice of, something that already caught attention. While research is taking notice of something new and sharing it. But I also think that knowledge is something that is accepted by the majority of people.
SvaraRadera