The Interactivity class for winter 2010 has finished. This class is a ten week introduction to writing software within the context of visual design. The students write programs to learn about interactivity (from basic response to designing a simple game) while learning the basics of computer programming.  Some great work was produced within each of the six projects.

Visit the course website
Visit the course exhibition at OpenProcessing

Here’s a partial list of projects that impressed me:

Project 6: Play
Michael, Ola, Matthew, Thomas, Mayura, Hugo, Grace, Gina

Project 5: Transform(er)
Ola, Michael, Heather, Jimena

Project 4: Narrate
Gina, Michael, Patricia, Mayura, Adrienne,

Project 3: Collage
Jimena, Heather, Michael, Grace, Mimi

Project 2: Respond
Ola, Grace, Heather, Michael, Ryan, Matthew

Project 1: Draw
Brianna, Ola, Hugo. Michael, Alexander, Matthew

I changed the assignments significantly from the previous version of the class and anytime that happens, there are some hits and misses. I feel good about the hits and I have clear ideas about how to improve the project briefs that were less successful. In the spirit of information exchange and self-critique, here are my thoughts:

Project 6: Play
The decision to limit the visual elements to 2 lines and 2 circles was a good move. The students focused more on the interactivity than in the past when they could spend more time creating elaborate graphics. Future: limit the project to 4 elements total rather then 2 lines, 2 circles. Each of the elements can be a circle, line, or rectangle.

Project 5: Transform(er)
This was the first time for this assignment and the brief didn’t lead to the kind of learning that I had intended. For many students it became an illustration project with very simple moving components. Future: Rename the project to something like “Transform(er) SuperMega” and turn it into a branding/logo/ID design project (can be earnest or a parody). Restrict all graphics to Processing geometry to encourage maximum formal flexibility. Instead of using mouseX as the input, use controlP5 library and have around three scrollbars change different parameters such as width, height, color, quantity, etc. Make a presentation of generative ID design (Karsten, Gadget OK!). This might be a good time to introduce bezierVertex(), curveVertex(), sin(), cos().

Project 4: Narrate
I think Alice in Wonderland was a great text to select, but not enough of the class read it closely, leading to generic narratives: “Oh no! Alice is being attacked by the cards.” The source material is amazing, it should be used. I think it’s important to formerly review the early steps of the process on this project, they should spend at least a week working on the story and images before starting the program. The decision for everyone to use the same story as the starting point was good. Future: Be a stickler for the diagrams and paper prototype, find another appropriate text with illustrations, constrain the text in the software to found elements within the  story. This leads off the Collage project well.

Project 3: Collage
Future: Too many of the projects were slight variations of the sample code, so explain the project is about setting up relations between elements, not simple giving them random values.

Project 2: Respond
This was the first time for the “eye” exercise and I was happy with the results. Future: encourage more variation (there were too many generic cartoon eyes), encourage more fluid response.

Project 1: Draw
This quarter, I limited the graphic elements to point(), line(), triangle(), quad(), rect(), ellipse(), and arc() and this was a good decision. I removed curve() and bezier() as options and didn’t discuss them in class. In the past working with bezier() was extremely frustrating to students and I don’t want to start them off frustrated. (Working with Bezier curves directly with coordinates is not pleasant for anyone.) I also made it clear that only integer numbers should be used as parameters to the drawing functions. Future: need to emphasize comments as a way to organize the code, emphasize variables.

Also, starting in Fall 2009, we started hosting the class at OpenProcessing.org. This has been great; Sinan has my sincere gratitude for creating a wonderful system.

I’ve taught for ten years now, but I’ve not written about my teaching or curriculum ideas. I’ve written extensively (too much?) about Processing, but not specifically how I use it in classes at UCLA and workshops elsewhere. This post is a start.

To throw a few more thoughts in…
I’ve been thinking more lately about how tools used for education are often different from tools used by professionals/experts. I think there’s substance to writing about how Processing relates specifically to education. How it fosters sharing information, how it limits the initial technical complexity of programming but details can be revealed to provide more flexibility in time (the training wheels come off to reveal a new experience), and how it is also simple at the core to give learners the experience of doing things the long way before they move to a higher-level library to give the same result with less effort. These factors encourage exploration, reduce frustration, and can lead to a deeper understanding of the software medium.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 8th, 2010 at 11:54 pm and is filed under Processing.org, UCLA DMA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.