Category: Uncategorized

Employer

Employee

HMW

Here is my pitch for design and research class;

Have you ever imagined of a playground where children can explore imagine and learn through play ? Traditional playgrounds are often designed by adults and not by children. I am interested in play based interaction- driven methods that allows children to participate as co-designers.

Play is essential for children’s development like social skills, cognitive abilities and physical health. Interaction design can help include children in the design process of playgrounds. I believe children should have more saying in a place where it is only for them and not for adults.

After the paper prototyping phase, discussed in the previous article:
Concept and Low-Fi Prototyping for an Interactive Plant Care System,the next step was to analyse the different types of sensors and boards available in order to develop a first testable version of the prototype.

Main Goal

The goal of the project is to create a simple and intuitive system capable of providing visual feedback about the health status of plants. In particular, the system integrates:

• capacitive soil moisture sensors placed inside plant pots to detect the percentage of soil humidity;
• a lighting system able to provide real-time visual feedback on the plant’s condition;
• a minimal digital interface (website/app) useful for configuring the system and displaying information.

The idea behind the digital interface is not to create a complex app, but an essential tool mainly useful for configuring the sensors, accessing plant information, or customising some design elements such as the lamp’s colour palette. The main interaction should therefore happen through the physical object rather than through screens or continuous notifications.

Fig. 1: Comparison between Arduino Uno and ESP32-S3

Technical Comparison: ESP32 vs Arduino Uno

The analysis showed that the ESP32-S3 represents the most modern and suitable choice for an integrated design, since it reduces the cost of external components and allows the creation of a more compact system.

At the same time, this comparison highlighted some important aspects related to the accessibility of the project.

Fig 2: Arduino R4 Wi-Fi board used for the first prototype development.

Although the ESP32-S3 is more powerful, for an initial prototype it was preferable to use a more intuitive system. One of the project goals is in fact to keep the system understandable and replicable even for users with basic electronic skills.

The final choice was Arduino R4 Wi-Fi, mainly because it is more intuitive for beginners and more accessible from a learning perspective.

References

[1] “DIY Smart Plant Pot,” Instructables. [Online]. Available: https://www.instructables.com/DIY-Smart-Plant-pot/

[2] “Talking Plant With ESP32,” Instructables. [Online]. Available: https://www.instructables.com/Talking-Plant-With-ESP32/

[3] “Smart Plant Pot With WS2812B LED Strip,” Instructables. [Online]. Available: https://www.instructables.com/Smart-Plant-Pot-With-WS2812B-Led-Strip/

[4] “Arduino Uno R4 WiFi,” Arduino Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.arduino.cc/hardware/uno-r4-wifi/

„Your Master Thesis should be the most ambitious thing you ever did.” This sentence, written on a presentation slide of our Design and Research course with Birgit made me think. It made so much sense to me, but at the same time it shifted my view on the Masters thesis. It’s not only something that I have to do, but also something that should feel in a way meaningful to me. It also made me rethink the topic I chose for last semester. I think the sentence wouldn’t apply to that – it doesn’t feel big enough. It would not be the most ambitious and meaningful thing I ever did. It doesn’t seem important enough to me.

So what now? What would feel important enough? As always when I need to sort my thoughts, I pulled out a notebook (I upgraded from random sheets of paper to something more durable) and started writing everything that would interest me as a topic on a mindmap and connected aspects that I thought would match. I wrote topics as well as things that make me worried, but also possible media I would specifically like to design as an outcome of the process. I will later take a picture of the notebook pages and upload them to this post.

The outcome of my brainstorming session was the following:

• Idea 1: Investigate how the use of AI will affect human coexistence. Then think about how the situation could be improved by design. Then think about how to raise awareness about the effects of AI and what people could do to avoid possible negative consequences. How could this be conveyed? Possible outcome: interactive installation / exhibition either for adults or children / youths, that travels from school to school
• Idea 2: How will AI affect the job market? Will paid work play a lesser role or even disappear entirely? How will the design sector in particular be affected? Research on the role of employment in building identity and creating meaningfulness. How could alternatives that fulfil the same purpose look like? What role can design play here?

After this first round of brainstorming I read some online articles on how to find a topic for a master thesis. Then I asked ChatGPT to give me 3 journal prompts to find a suitable topic. This is what it gave me as a first task:

1. Interest Mapping Journal
(What really draws you in?)

Here’s how it works: For 1–2 weeks, keep a daily journal with three brief categories:

• What sparked my curiosity today?
• What irritated or annoyed me?
• What did I think about longer than necessary?

Important: Don’t filter. Everything counts:

• Interfaces
• social situations
• technologies
• habits
• physicality
• work
• learning
• AI
• public spaces
• games
• digital fatigue, etc.
• Why this helps

Master’s thesis topics often don’t arise from “cool ideas,” but from:

• recurring attention
• unresolved tensions
• personal obsessions

After a few days, you’ll start to see patterns:

• recurring terms
• specific contexts
• the same emotions
• similar problems

These often lead to promising research directions.

I documented the questions for five days in my notebook. I found that I’m annoyed either by people or the sounds they make, by the weather or trains, I’m apparently quite curious about gossip and people on the train and think a lot about what jacket to wear, my future and daily errands. While analysing this, I kind of got stuck on my curiosity for other people and their travel destinations. I sometimes wonder if I should just ask the people opposite of me in the 4-person seat where they are going and why, but I’m usually too shy or I fear I might annoy them. I once had a very nice conversation with a woman from Graz who lives close to Mannheim now. We even ended up exchanging numbers because she was looking for a new renter for her apartment in Graz.

I take the train home to Germany every few months and I’m usually quite bored during the 6h journey. I think it would be cool to ask the people next to me if they would be interested in a round of card games, but first, I never have any games with me and second of all they usually seem very busy on their laptops or wear headphones. Maybe it would be interesting to investigate if people are generally open to connecting with others on long train rides, e.g. while playing games, or if they prefer to just be by themselves. I also wonder how people could naturally be motivated to interact with each other without making it feel forced.

Thoughts on the journalling method

I was a bit sceptical about this method in the beginning, especially because I went home to my parents place this weekend and didn’t expect anything extraordinary interesting to happen during those days – even while writing things down I thought there would be nothing relevant as a research topic. I’m surprised that it actually helped me a bit. I’m not sure if I will stick with the connecting-people-on-trains thing, but I definitely think it could be interesting. I will continue this method for the upcoming week since I think there might be different results when I may days are more structured and when I spend more time at FH. Also continuing especially the curiosity part during our trip to WebExpo in Prag could bring some interesting findings.

I think I will have to postpone the other 2 journalling methods to another day, but I’m already curious about what new ideas they might bring me. For a start I don’t feel as lost anymore as I did on thursday, when I started writing this post.

For the sake of completeness I will include pictures of my notes at the end of this post.

Next steps:

Try out the other methods, hopefully find another interesting topic idea and start prototyping for some interactive approaches to connect travellers.

Journalling pages

Picture the situation: You’re at a train station and there’s so much going on. You may be at the wrong part of the platform or it’s crowded and getting in and out of the train is very complicated. You may be limited physically so you cannot even board the train or you have heavy luggage or a bike with you. That’s a problem that occurs on many train stations around Europe but especially in Germany. There are missing cues for communication and support for stress-free and efficient structure.

The idea that I have to solve this problem is a leading system that would be integrated into the platform that would make orientation, understanding and a barrier-free use much easier. The USP is very simple, it’s not there yet. There is information and a leading system happening at the moment but it’s often handled with signs which can be insufficient or wrong. The information is there but it’s normally more in an app or on paper and not in a physical space visible.

And why I want to take on this problem is because I am also going on trains a lot of the time, traveling a lot via train and I want to solve this problem because it would help a lot of people and also an interaction designer and a media designer that wants to take on this challenge.

As my research develops, I find myself moving from a more artistic and perceptual understanding of illusion toward a question that feels increasingly relevant within contemporary design practice: what happens when these same mechanisms enter the fields of branding, marketing, and visual identity? If illusion can hold attention, invite interpretation, and create emotional engagement, then its role may not end in the gallery or installation space. It may also operate powerfully in commercial and communicative design.

This shift in my thinking does not mean abandoning the earlier questions. On the contrary, it grows directly out of them. If people are naturally drawn to images that contain more than one layer, then it seems important to ask how this functions in visual systems that are meant to communicate quickly and memorably. In a world overwhelmed by messages, perhaps what stays with us is not always what is most direct, but what gives us something to discover.

Branding is full of such moments, even if we do not always name them as illusions. Hidden meanings in logos, unexpected uses of negative space, double-image packaging, and visual metaphors in advertising all rely on a similar principle – they reward attention. They ask the viewer to complete something mentally, and that small act of participation can make communication feel more intelligent, more satisfying, and often more memorable. In this sense, illusion may not simply decorate a message, it may strengthen the relationship between the message and its audience.

What interests me here is the possibility that ambiguity can function strategically. We often assume that effective branding must be immediate and fully transparent. Yet some of the most recognizable visual identities are built on subtlety, suggestion, and layered communication. A logo that reveals something more upon closer inspection creates not only recognition, but also a sense of discovery. A campaign that uses visual surprise can interrupt routine perception in a way that feels fresh rather than forced. These are not only aesthetic choices, they are communicative decisions.

This has made me curious about the border between perception and persuasion. How much do visual ambiguity and illusion influence decision-making? Can a brand become more memorable because it asks more from the viewer? Does surprise generate trust, curiosity, or emotional attachment? And where is the line between meaningful visual intelligence and empty cleverness? These questions feel especially relevant today, when attention has become one of the most contested spaces in design.

Some designers and artists offer useful points of reference here. Shigeo Fukuda’s work, for example, demonstrates how with reduction, and visual misdirection can produce images that are both playful and conceptually sharp. Even artists such as Erik Johansson, whose manipulated scenes belong more to constructed image-making than branding, reveal how impossible visuals can remain persuasive when they are emotionally coherent. In different ways, these examples suggest that visual complexity can communicate with force when it is purposeful.

For now, I remain in the research phase, following the thread wherever it becomes most alive.

The more I think about illusion, the less I understand it as a separate category of visual play and the more I begin to see it as something deeply connected to the way human perception works. What first appeared to me as an artistic and spatial device now seems to touch something more fundamental: our need to search for coherence, to resolve uncertainty, and to make meaning out of what is not immediately clear.

Perhaps this is why illusion has such a lasting power. It does not simply present an image, it stages a relationship between what is visible and what is withheld. It creates a small instability in perception, a moment in which the viewer cannot remain passive. Something does not fully make sense at first glance, and that very hesitation becomes compelling. In a visual culture saturated with instant readability, this interruption feels important. It makes us stop.

I have started to wonder whether the strength of illusion lies precisely in this delay. Instead of offering immediate clarity, it asks for attention, and in doing so, it changes the quality of looking. The eye becomes slower, more investigative. Perception turns into interpretation. This transition feels central to my research, because it suggests that illusion is not only about misseeing, but about deeper forms of engagement.

This has led me to questions that move beyond formal experimentation. Why are we drawn to images that reveal themselves gradually? What happens emotionally when something is hidden, fragmented, or double-layered? Is the pleasure of illusion only intellectual, or can it also be emotional? I find myself increasingly interested in the possibility that illusion can carry feelings such as curiosity, discomfort, wonder, nostalgia, or even tension. In that sense, it may operate not only as a visual strategy, but also as a symbolic one.

Many artists and designers have approached perception in ways that go far beyond mere trickery. Looking at the work of M. C. Escher, for example, one encounters worlds built on visual contradiction, but also on a profound questioning of logic and reality. Bridget Riley’s optical fields do not simply confuse the eye, they activate the body and generate a physical sensitivity to rhythm and movement. James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson, in very different ways, use light and space to destabilize certainty and make perception itself the subject of the work. These practices suggest that illusion can be immersive, psychological, and even philosophical.

I am particularly drawn to the idea that ambiguity might have depth rather than weakness. In many contexts, clarity is treated as the highest goal of communication. Yet some of the most memorable visual experiences are not the ones that explain themselves immediately, but the ones that remain partially open. Ambiguity leaves room for projection. It allows the viewer to participate, to bring memory, emotion, and association into the act of seeing. This makes the encounter with the work more personal, and perhaps more lasting.

At this stage of my research, I am trying to resist the temptation to define illusion too narrowly. I do not want to reduce it to a category of optical phenomena alone. I am beginning to think of it more broadly, as a condition in which appearance becomes unstable and meaning is produced through active perception. This could include distortion, hidden images, layered forms, spatial transformation, or even symbolic visual language. What connects these approaches is not only surprise, but the invitation to look twice.

I still do not know where this line of inquiry will lead me. But I am increasingly convinced that illusion matters not because it fools us, but because it reveals something about us: about how we search for meaning, how we tolerate uncertainty, and how much of seeing is shaped by expectation, memory, and desire.

Back again with my rigging process. As already mentioned, the next project is the spider ball. The spider ball is a little robot. It is a ball that can extend its legs, head and guns. Since the model itself is quite complex the teacher provided it divided into different parts as Masks in the Modifier tab. I have never used it before, and it proofed very helpful. With it the different sections of the robot can be easily isolated.

As usual at first every deformation bone needed was created. Then the process of the basic ball rig repeated. Root, Rotation, Body and squash and stretch work pretty much the same.

I really appreciated using my 3D cursor to snap bones onto vertices. I can slowly see the appeal of it. I still don’t like it that I use it accidently all the time. I will get used to it.

The skinning was quick; due to the mechanical function there is no need for soft edges. The skinning was done with empty groups. The parts were selected and assigned in the vertex groups. The explanation that every weight is listed on the right side in the transfom window was helpful. In case something is assigned into multiple groups they can be kicked with one klick.

One thing I found myself thinking about again and again is how much I have learned in this rigging course about modelling. There is so much thought about how something will later work in the rig and animation in the model itself. Of course this is also a byproduct of it being a robot. Every function needs to be thought about in the design process. Behind the parts which open needs to be a fleshed-out design and not just an empty hole. I have never modelled a robot myself, but I feel better prepared to do so from now on.  It is fun to work with a model that itself doesn’t have mistakes in it and is properly prepared for the rigging process. It makes the work a lot easier.

The longest part so far of the tutorial is the IK-leg rig. Number one rule for all bones is that you don’t use the deformation bones in the final rig. Just in case something goes wrong in the process it is easier to go back. Therefore, in the first step the leg bones were duplicated and as usual put into a separate Bone collection. All the deformation bones get the copy transformation constraint, and they follow our copied bones. Then the IK Constraint is used. To keep the leg in the correct angle a Pole bone was added. To get it correct it is important to switch to Normals instead of Global in the Viewport and move the bone via the X Aches.  To keep the knee from popping IK-stretch can be used with a very small value. Since a robot is not stretchy a new bone was added at the beginning of the leg bone chain. With a limit distance from this bone to the foot the stretching can be negated. To get the correct length the length of the two leg bones needs to be added together. Just copy them and paste them with a plus in the blender tab console. Tada! Blender has a little calculator too.

As a last step everything got its custom shape and color. To conclude, I worked through 13 out of 26 lessons. Another 13 and the ball is finished.

Link to video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzD1ZcvYe4 

Transcript – 

Do you know how to use chopsticks? If so, how did you learn? If you’ve ever tried to teach anybody, how did that go?  

Now, imagine those chopsticks are actually 6 m tall pieces of fabric and the student is airborne and spinning. Hard, right?  

I’m talking about the same problem as the chopsticks, but in a bigger scale. It’s proprioception, spatial awareness, and observational learning in hybrid scenarios with your life on the line.  

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, aerial silks are pieces of fabric hung from the ceiling and used as an apparatus for aerial dance. While propioception is the awareness of the body. 

I’m talking about a design and communication problem. And with 2 years of aerial silks experience, four years in UX research and already eight months of user testing and validation, I can confidently say that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.  

Instead, I propose an aerial silk teaching kit which would support both students who are beginners and advanced in furthering their acrobatic studies by allowing both teachers and students to externalize the internal body process of proprioception.  

The kit will be anchored in a 3D model and accompanying app, but will also include supporting elements to tackle each student’s individual challenges like not being able to distinguish left from right.  

And just like user research in traditional learning methods in the classroom, I believe this has the potential to revolutionize learning in the gym. Thank you.