MFA Thesis: The Gesture Synth
Experiment 2
Current Thesis Concept: : A physical device that influences electronic musical creation and performance.
Experiment Research Objective: Implementation
Design Questions
Current macro design questions:
- What are the needs of electronic musicians re: gestural or alternative interfaces? What are some interesting alternatives to the way electronic music is currently created?
Experiment #2 specific design questions:
- How big should the device be?
- Which shape shape do users prefer?
- Where should the buttons be placed on the device?
Experiment
This experiment focused on the size, shape, and general button-placement for the device. After completing my first experiment, I realized that it was crucial to develop the shape and size of the instrument before moving on to other factors. Only after the physical properties start to take shape can the sonic properties be adequately mapped. In other words, the form begets function. To answer the questions I set up 3 small experiments, each focusing on a specific aspect: size, shape, and button-placement.
Shape
The first question I needed to answer was one of shape. My initial designs were for a spherical instrument. Most instruments have a set front, back, top and bottom. It is clear when you approach an instrument with a keyboard that it will react like a piano does. Few people with any prior musical experience will pick up the piano and try shaking it to see what happens. Because of this, I believed that an instrument without any front, back, left, or right side would bring more discovery and interest to the user. I thought this would alleviate the preconceived ideas of how the instrument might work. I also desired to create an instrument that was not directionally oriented for my own selfish curiosity. Even after abandoning the fur-covered housing from the earlier iterations, I still believed that this was the most interesting solution. However, I needed to test this hypothesis with some actual users.
To test this hypothesis I set up a simple experiment. I had three illustrated shapes that I presented to the user, and I asked her which she would prefer. These were a) a sphere, b) a cube, and c) a half-sphere (similar to a globe cut in half). I instructed each participant not to worry about the size and only focus on shape, and I asked her whether she believed this to be an interesting shape for a musical instrument. This experiment took place on Thursday, September 25 in the 10th floor lab in the CDT department of Parsons, the New School for Design. I asked the majority of my thesis research class and a few outsiders as well. There were slightly more females than males, and the age ranges were from 25 to 32. A few of the participants were wary of the sphere. Lynn, a 27 year-old female, expressed concern over how the sphere would rest. She was afraid that it would roll away during a performance, creating unwanted sound. Most of the participants liked the idea of the half-sphere. Erik, a 29 year-old male, believed that this would make the device easier to store than a sphere. None of the participants desired to see a cube-shaped instrument.
Size
I believed it next necessary to figure out a size for the device. Would a user enjoy using a smaller, easily wielded, instrument, or would she rather have something with more substance and weight? While it is true that different instruments can easily span this divide, I was convinced that, for my purpose, a good middle ground was the best solution. I wanted to prove that something substantial yet portable, something that felt solid in a user's hands but could easily fit in to a bag, would be optimum.
To answer this design question I built three identically shaped objects using the previously tested half-sphere shape and, over a week-long period, asked a series of users which was preferred. I made sure that most of the participants were asked independently from each other so as not to sway their opinions. These sample objects were made out of three round aluminum mixing bowls purchased at a restaurant supply store on the Bowery. Their diameters were 6.5 inches, 8 inches, and 9.75 inches. The larger mixing bowls also were taller, and their heights, in order of diameter, were 2.25 inches, 2.75 inches, and 3.8 inches. I cut particle board to fit snugly on the open end of each of these bowls and secured them snugly with screws. The particle board added to the height of each mock-up by a half an inch. I believed adding the particle board cover to the object would make it look less like a utensil for cooking. This was achieved. Many of my testers asked where I got the interesting base for the mock-up, not able to tell at all that it would be used in the kitchen.
During the week of October 1 to October 8, I interviewed 10 people in the CDT department at Parsons, the New School for Design. They ranged in age from 23 to 38 years-old. Interestingly enough, they were unanimous about the size of the instrument. Every single person liked the smaller version of the instrument the best. I had thought that the medium sized mock-up might have a bit more authenticity to it, but this was not the case. The entire test group preferred the smallest mock-up. Akiko, a 23 year-old female student from Japan, thought that the smallest version would be easier to use and would be "really easy to throw in a bag." Alia, a 23 year-old female student from Ontario, Canada, completely independently, said almost the same thing. Without prompting, she actually put the device in her bag to see how it would travel. This was not something that I had even considered up to this point, so focused was I on the musical properties. Both of these testers, in particular, would use controllers such as this for visual art-works, so this was very interesting to discover. It was clear from this experiment that portability is just as much a factor to success as ergonomics.
Button Placement
The last design question I looked at was button placement. Specifically, I was curious how the user would prefer the orientation of the device. Would the buttons be better suited on the flat, wooden side of the device or on the rounded convex side? Would the user like to hold the flat side away or towards himself/herself?
To answer this question I took the most up-to-date prototype (the smallest half-sphere bowl with attached wooden top) and drew buttons on both the wooden side and the convex bowl side. The "buttons" were simple areas drawn in pencil and marker. This experiment also took place in the 10th floor lab on Monday, October 6, and Monday, October 13. I asked 4 of the people who participated in the second experiment to test these two options. The first week (October 6) the buttons were drawn on the wooden side of the device. In this version, each user still held the device with the wooden side facing himself/herself. When prompted to hold the device the other way, most felt that this was awkward and unnatural. The second week (October 13) the buttons were erased from the wooden side and drawn in marker on the convex side. The same four users were asked to test this modification. They unanimously agreed that this was more natural. Catherine, a 30 year-old female said, "oh, yes, this feels great. The other was way too awkward."
Conclusions
The micro design questions were answered in this experiment. A few more that I had not even thought about were answered as well. First, users desire an instrument with a novel shape. However, there needs to be some kind of discernible orientation. I had not considered the difficulty or confusion that would arise from an instrument with no obvious "front". A spherical shape with no button would be too bizare for the first-time user to comprehend. While repeated uses might make this more clear, it is important to have at least some aspect of the device easily understood at first glance. We want the user to naturally desire repeated encounters with the device. We also want the device to be fun to use, not confusing and uninteresting. The sphere proved to be too ambiguous. Also, the users will need some way to put the device down when not using it. A sphere has the danger of rolling away. It is easy to solve this dilemma with a flattened bottom. The best choice, from user testing and further thinking, is clearly the half sphere shape. It has the novelty of the sphere while keeping in mind the usability concerns and preconceived notions of most users.
Also, users want a smaller sized device. It is important to have something hand held, especially for newer electronic music performance. Most users are unwilling to abandon their keyboard setup, and a device that can supplement their current setup will be more widely accepted. Portability is also necessary. Users want something that can easily be stored in a bag. Apart from the experiments, we can look at the success of Monome's 40h as precedent. While they have come out with larger, perhaps more robust designs, the smaller portable 40h is still more widely used.
Finally, the primary buttons will be placed on the bottom of the device. Every user fund this most interesting and useful. Most agreed that sliders or touch sensors on the top could add to the robustness of the device, but it is the first priority to have a set of buttons easily accessed while holding the half-sphere with the convex side facing away from the user. This makes sense when we think about the human hand. It is understandable that a user would like to hold something in the most natural way, and this is clearly the way they want to hold the instrument.
Next Steps
For the next phase of the experimentation, I want to look more closely at ergonomic molding and more advanced button placement. The bottom of the device is primarily round, but there can be room for smaller contours that can suggest hand placement even more appropriately. I plan on using clay to mold different areas on the bottom of the device in to hills and valleys and test how users respond to them.
I have also purchased a variety of buttons that I will test with users to see which of these feel the best. Also, it will be important in the future to examine the sonic properties. Should the buttons trigger simple note on messages, or is there a way that multiple button presses can cause notes to swell in and out in an interesting way? It is clear that as this project continues these questions will become more important. They will give the instrument a more complete and interesting feel.
Experiment 1
Current Thesis Concept: : A physical device that explores new ways to influence electronic musical creation and performance
Experiment Research Objective: Concept, Implementation
Design Questions
Current macro design questions:
- Is there a relationship between physical space and electronic sound?
- What would this relationship look like?
- How can you effectively map human experience on a physical object?
- What are the needs of electronic musicians re: gestural or alternative interfaces?
Experiment #1 specific design questions:
- Do my preconceived ideas about a musician’s needs match those actual desires?
- Specifically, would users like a functionality that makes leads and/or scales possible?
- How can you make a flexible lead device with limited space?
Experiment
In this experiment, I built a Max/Msp patch that allows the user to play musical leads and/or patterns. The patch uses simple equations to generate every key in standard western notation (A through G, including all of the sharp/flat combos - i.e. A#/Bb) and applies the four most common scales: major, minor, harmonic minor, and blues. In the future, this can be easily augmented with more obscure and interesting scales, but I was more curious to test my assumptions before I continued much further. I was curious if this would be something that the user would find interesting and useful. Would they find the option to easily play melodic patterns a benefit, or would this notion, already so prevalent in existing instruments, seem tired and not useful? To answer these questions, I attached the series of eight note buttons to a block of wood. My users generally found this fun and interesting. Most people asked for access to changing the sound. Some, having seen my earlier prototypes for the gyroscope-influenced synthesizer, tilted the block of wood, hoping to effect the sound. This strengthens the idea to me that this interface is a positive one. As for aesthetics, I used black and red buttons and chose a purely decorative pattern of red, three black, three red, and black. At first I considered alternating black and red, but I didn’t want to make the buttons look too much like a piano keyboard. One tester found the color choices bland so I may experiment with different patterns in the future.
Conclusions
The design questions were answered in this experiment. Users do like the idea of note-based performance, and they find it useful over semi-structured gestural performance. Also, they desire some advanced gesture-based manipulation on top of the structured note-making. This is excellent to know as I continue with my research. With this groundwork I can apply different gestural augmentation that can add to the experience, rather than distract and confuse from the start. The thesis remains the same but with more of a focus on user experience than exploration. While previously I was interested in asking questions about instrument possibilities, I find myself increasingly needing to actually answer these questions. I am interested in building a useful instrument, and it will take many more experiments and tests to accomplish this goal.
Next Steps
For the next phase of the experimentation, I will need to propel myself in to the world of the instrument’s physicality. I have been holding off on this, partly because I know what an important aspect of the project this is and that terrifies me, but partly also because I wanted to have a clear idea of the instrument/controller’s use before exploring the form. I know see that these considerations need to be discovered in tandem. Form leads to use and vice versa. However, having a better idea of the use from this experiment is already causing me to rethinking my form ideas. Over the next three weeks I will explore a few different possibilities of the shape of the object and the placement of the eight note buttons I have already decided to use. Should they be on the bottom, away from the user? Should they be spit in to groups of 4? I like this idea, but it may be confusing to the user. Also, this might not fit every user’s hand shape. Should the device be a sphere, half a sphere, cube, or something else? This next step of explorations will help to narrow down these questions and move the design further.
