The Show

Exhibition night was upon us and in the two and a half hours leading up to it, what seemed like at least half of the 2nd and 3rd year BCT students were rushing around prepping the studio; vacumming the floor, setting up drinks, moving tables, touching up the partitions with white paint, cleaning the computer screens, fixing up projects and exhibits. It was a really good vibe to see it all coming together and going from a university assessment, to a more formal exhibition.

Once people started coming in, it was exciting going around with fresh eyes and showing off not just my project, but those of others to friends and family. It was fantastic to see the final products which have emerged from the briefs which were pitched to us only a few months ago, especially the ones I saw only small bits and pieces of over the semester.

I had a few bugs getting Unity Remote up and running as the connection is quite finicky sometimes so in the end I just left it running. Whenever people tried it out and it worked, I always received a positive response; something immediately appealed to people about being able to use the iPhone to control navigation through a 3D space on the iMac.

I wad surprised a bit that the iPhone app seemed to have a little bit less of the uptake . This was possibly because they were a bit hard to see just sitting on the plinth and people seemed a bit hesitant to just pick them up and interact with them. By my conversations, if they were encouraged by either a member of the team or if they saw other people using them they were more likely to engage with it.

That did however seem to be the case for most of the exhibits. This being my fourth exhibition during my time in the BCT, I am becoming more aware of what make a successful exhibit. I tried to pay attention to was elements made for a successful exhibit. The animatronic dragon worked well as people were almost forced into interacting with it as it responded to movement via input from sensors which quite often shocked and surprised people. The duo of third years who made a 3D comic book did well by having copies of it people could take away and also by having it running on a large screen. The various flying devices caught people's attention because they were quite visually imposing but really relied on being demonstrated to show off what they actually did.

This exhibition was a bit different from previous ones as each group made presentations. I was up first presenting on behalf of our group.




My speech is also viewable by clicking here.

The next morning we had our final crit / question and answer session to meet with the tutors and discuss any other questions they might have. The main point that was discussed was each team member talking about their role in the group, which led to reflections of how the team worked as a whole. In particular, the international students reflected upon how the nature of the BCT was different to what they were used to.

I found that particularly interesting to hear about as they are used to a more formalised structure and had some trouble adapting to the more casual nature of the studio paper. At the beginning we had attempted to create a formalised structure and timetable with deadlines but it wasn't adhered to. I too work better with a structure and have almost found the balance between keeping deadlines but also to explore those little side roads and detours along the way. I think finding this balance is the trick to this paper as it results in a richer, better explored project, but one which is also completed on time and not rushed at the end. In saying that, this project too was a little rushed towards the end.

I felt my response was a bit different to the rest of the team. Everyone talked about their role in the technical side and bringing this together, while I mentioned this but also talked about my interest in the theoretical and research side which was one of the main driving forces for me in why I chose this project. This too however was something I only started to get more into towards the end of the project and wish I'd explored earlier.

Overall, the tutors seemed pleased with the outcome and the feedback felt positive. We were told that more time should've been spend on the theoretical / research side and James summed up by asking us this: "How do you measure the success of a project - by what you've learned or what you've made?"

I feel that this project had elements of success in both these areas; we created a functioning app to fulfil the brief and we learned a lot of skills to get there. Personally, I didn't learn quite as much as I would've liked as I chose to step back from the programming side of things and focus on other aspects required to bring the project as a whole together. I learnt a lot of the fundamentals to get started in iPhone development which was one of the things I wanted out of this project. Over the summer I would like to keep working on this and get an application in the app store early next year. It is a skill I am looking a possibly taking into project work next year too.

I struggled a bit working in a large team and in reflection of my two years doing this degree, I work better in smaller group of 2-3 , but not on my own. My final reflection and contextual statement is viewable by clicking here.

At the end of the day, it was a good project and I am pleased with the outcome. All that awaits now is the grade! But regardless of that, I feel it was a strong and rewarding project and I am glad I chose it. Next year I am definitely looking to doing a self directed project and pulling together a strong team. I am going to the CreateWorld Conference run by the Apple Universities Consortium (AUC) and hoping this will be an inspiring experience to drive me through into next year.

Bring on third year!

Exhbition Set Up

Our deadline has come and gone and tomorrow night will be the big exhibition, presentation and assessment. The requirements for our project were to have the iPhone simulator running the app on an iMac, the Unity Simulation running on an iMac and iPhones running the app.

We decided we would set up our space like a gallery with the artworks on the walls and tagged with the numbers so people could try it out like an actual audio tour.

Due to size / space and financial restraints, the works were all printed at A4, despite the fact many of them are a lot larger, they are all different scale and that some of them are sculptures / installations rather than something that can actually be frames.

The visual result of this turned out quite well and perhaps makes an interesting comment on the nature of the reproduction of art. I had lots of helpful feedback from James while setting up and in the end decided on clustering the artworks as it plays on the fact that they are pretending to be something they're not, and makes obvious that they are in fact, not actual artworks or accurate depictions thereof.

Regardless of the accuracy ( or lack there of), I think it makes for an eye catching exhibition and will draw people over. It will be the first proper time we'll have people outside the project and the BCT interacting with our project and app so will be a good chance to gather user feedback on usability and aesthetics.

We had set up in the end three iMacs running the iPhone simulator, Unity iPhone interfacing with Unity Remote (on the iPhone), and the standard version of Unity with the keyboard and mouse navigation and content interaction.

I am looking forward to showcasing our project and presenting it as it has always generated a lot of interest as I've talked about it over the semester.

Finally, below is the documentation I have collated for this project, summing up key areas and ideas of the project from the duration of the semester. Some of it is taken from this blog and refined and brought together in a more cohesive manner. It can be downloaded to be viewed at full res (originally intended for A3 size) or can be zoomed in.

The App

With the app in the nearing finished stages, it had undergone a visual revamp and what we have achieved over the duration of a semester long project is an app which implements the integral and fundamental components of an audio tour. I feel it has fulfiled the primary aims of being aesthetically pleasing and easy to use, as demonstrated below.

Reflecting back on the original brief, it is important at this staget o think about other features which would enhance the app to meet the desires of the client and ful lfill the long term brief. These features would work to make the experience even more impressive and interactive.

We have being to tap into some of these but beyond the scope of a semester long project, there is much more to be achieved past the initial pilot prototype.

Such features include:

Information tailored to user specfi c interests. This would involve research and trials into each of the user profi les to fi nd out what would make the gallery experience enjoyable for them.

Access collateral material such as video, images, audio and text. Recon figured content would be required to fit within the di fferent user pro files and additional images and videos would o er more insight into each artwork as it shows the viewer more into what is behind the creation of the work. e.g. In fluential images / art movements, Initial working sketches, Other works by the same artist

Connect with other visitors and the gallery community as a whole, through a social or participatory experience. Social media is embedded into many websites, giving users the ability to connect with existing pro les such as Twitter and Facebook. These would enable users to leave comments, messages and ideas with visitors in the space and those who come after. Discussions around ideas and topics and personal interpretations might reveal even more to a user or explain it in a way they might not have understood.

Tag works and send links to their email for later reinforces a ‘post-gallery experience’, the ability to continue to interact and learn even after they’ve left the space. Such a feature would encourage return visits.

Playing an interactive activity or educational game, perhaps a scavenger hunt or quiz, would reinforce learning and add the element of a challenge, especially for younger children who may be initially uninterested in the gallery visit.

Access to multiple layers of information, for example an artwork referencing a specifi c artistic movement or historical context could allow the viewer to access a section explaining that background. Providing a deeper and wider perspective on the context in which art is created helps the user form a better understand of what an artwork means. This also means that if a viewer if not interested in the context and only wants to know about the medium of the work, this too is possible.

Hear multiple perspectives and opinions about artworks, especially within the context of New Zealand art, hearing a Maori perspective would be di fferent experience and viewpoint from a Pakeha perspective and reveal more about the cultural signi ficance and New Zealand heritage.

Navigating the building is an essential tool which we have begun to explore new ways of doing. We are no longer restricted by having to provide a linear tour but it also challenging to have to consider how the user may want to approach, enter and explore the space. Ideally, this would be integrated with a seamless integration with the artworks. That is, the device would automatically be able to detect not only the user’s location but which artwork they are standing in front of and bring up the appropriate content.

Such a feature would have require extensive technical research, a budget and experimentation. Possible technologies would be QR Codes, Wi , Bluetooth or Image recognition software.

The client has also discussed embedding commercial applications , for example is a user ‘likes’ and artwork, it would suggest to them to buy a print, if they’ve been in the gallery for a while it could suggest to them to go to the cafe.

Conclusion
Emerging technologies will continue to change the role smart devices play in our every day lives. In the long term execution of this plan, it is important to take into consideration that devices become very quickly outdated so that the content must always be king: regardless what the platform, once the novelty has worn of, it needs to be the UI and the content and the experience that keeps the user coming back.

Unity Remote

Once the gallery space was set up in Unity and looking reasonably reaslitic, it was time to add navigation features. With Unity iPhone, the scripting had to be adapted over from the inputs we had be using (touch inputs versus keyboard and mouse inputs) but we also had to consider the practical usability of the best way to implement navigation with these different inputs.

This poses and interesting con flict: how do you interact with a 3D environment with a 2D touch interface? With the touch interface, you have no keyboard, mouse joystick or controller, the traditional components used to move around and interact. This is where the limited screen size and touch interface will be become crucial factors.

With a touch screen device, the screen is the one and only form of input and this method of direct manipulation impacts on how the user interacts with the device. The user has both zero and many locations on the screen - if you have no fingers on the screen, you have no location.
The hardware is the content - an application becomes the entire content for the duration it is running.

As I starting point, we had a look at Penelope, an iPhone app available in the app store which has been built using Unity 3D. The source code, files and a tutorial are available on the Unity website to learn how to integrate UI elements in Unity applications for iPhone.

It o ffers three diff erent ways to navigate through the space, two of which are based around an on screen ‘joystick’ off ering the option of camera relative and player relative control. The third option is a tap control where the fi gure moves to where the player taps.

Unlike this game, for our app the user will not be controlling a ‘character’ on screen, but rather they will be navigating themselves through the space, hence the camera will act as the ‘player’ that the user controls. As this is not a game, the joystick interface is not a relevant one.

The tap to move is the most applicable. However, as we have other elements on screen that the user needs to interact with, it could get too di fficult to accurately select where the user wants to move to.

Rather, the other feature of the iPhone we can utilize is the accelerometer. This way, the user can move through the space by simply tilting the iPhone in the desired direction of movement and tap on the screen only when they want to interact directly with the space (i.e. the ‘bubbles’.)

For our application, this is more intuitive than the joystick and more functional than the tap to move but needs to be calibrated carefully to allow for natural movement as the user holds it so it doesn’t move around when the user wishes to stay still.

To implement this through code, the online documentation and scripting reference was extremely helpful. I was given the code for reading the accelerometer input from the iPhone and using that to move and object. From there is was a matter of callibrating the movement so it seemed natural in the gallery space and setting thresholds for the value so that the user could hold the iPhone naturally and it would only move when the user intended it to. I also ran into issues where once applying this code, the person controller stopped reacting to the colliders on the wall so would move straight through them and this had to be fixed.

The swipe to rotate was a little more difficult. I was working off a code which too the swipe movement across the screen and used it to translate an object. I spent a few days trying to recode this to rotate the camera to give the user the ability to 'look around' and after creating and calculating purely through code, I found a function which did all the calculations and reduced my code down to about half a dozen lines. It was however a good learning experience.

The video below shows a demo of this in action.

Unfortunately, some of the other code we tried to adapt over which created the bubble behaviors and revealed the content and interaction with the artworks generated a lot of errors. A lot of what Unity handles in the background has to be done manually for Unity iPhone and with the time constraints, we weren't able to adapt over and integrate.

So for the final hand in of this component of the project, we have two standalone aspects which we will present: Unity iPhone running on an iMac hooked up to an iPhone which enables the user to navigate through the space, and another iMac running standard Unity and interacting with the bubbles and content through mouse and keyboard.

If this were to be further developed, the next stages would be to successfully amalgamate the two and have it running on the iPhone as an app (currently it is only communicating through WiFi and acting as a remote). And from there, embedding it into the audio tour iPhone app as an option for navigation with the ‘birds eye’ view navigation / basic map accessible as well. Not everyone would be comfortable using the 3D interface and would prefer to stick to the familiar 2D map.

However, I am pleased that these two components we will be able to exhibit for our final presentation.