Presentation

Based on the comments received, I made a few significant observations following my presentation. First off, my research's concept and methodology are wide-ranging. Although I used a lot of "big" terms, it wasn't clear enough for everyone to grasp what I was attempting to say. Second, in comparison to some of my peers, my research did not make as much progress as it could have. Third, going back to the previous issue, I need to be more explicit about the goals and subject matter of my research.

For instance, precisely what kind of technology am I referring to when I use the phrase "technology"? Did I mean cognitive load in a more social sense or in a psychological sense when I addressed it? Do I mean interactive via a screen or through something tangible when I use the term "interactive"? Certain things that I had overlooked were brought to my attention by the feedback. The input I received helped me to have a deeper understanding of where I stood.

What I struggled with was that, although the idea was clear to me in my head, I found it difficult to articulate it to others and the lecturer, and it was not expressed properly in spoken form. I expect that as I learn more and more background information on this topic, my perspective and vision will grow increasingly fuzzy, but I want to have a deeper knowledge of the subject eventually. I would say that, for the time being, I am rather confident in the project's progress and schedule.

My lecturer, Andreas, recommended that we all identify three research pillars and then read and build our thoughts and research around them. Having the three pillars would serve as both the basis and the beginning point of our investigation, as opposed to studying the issue in its entirety. I will expand on it and define the three main pillars of my study using the terms I came up with for the research: design and technology, immersive/interactive installation, creative coding, computational design, multi-sensory experience, storytelling, attention span, and experiential.

Experiments

My approach for doing experiments would be to make arbitrary objects with interactive elements and see where that leads. I quickly began my first experiment, where I carefully studied how to create moving particles on P5Js using YouTube videos. I had to pay great attention to the code because it was complex. The aim was to construct coloured dots that functioned as pixels to build the image, using a backdrop image as a guide. The pixels could then be interacted with by shifting and moving them around using the mouse/cursor. When it comes to the visuals' intricacy, it is unquestionably straightforward and simple, and once it is explained to someone, they will understand what it accomplishes. The particles just move about according to the participants' attention span, which causes individuals to quickly lose interest in it.

One thing I do know is that I would much rather have my prototype or work as a tangible build or installation than as something that exists only on screen. I believed that the prototype's tactile aspect would enhance the user experience and the story of my creation. Should I have included anything that is seen on screen, it would have been additional material rather than the primary subject. After finishing the code, I debated whether there was a method to combine p5js and html codes. After experimenting for some time, I was unable to solve the problem or get it to function, even though javascript seemed to be the answer according to Google. Although I'm leaving the possibility of adding a screen-based interactive aspect to websites open, it will be put on hold for the time being.