▩▩▩▩▩▩▩ WEEK 10 ▩▩▩▩▩▩▩

Troubleshooting Session w/ Andreas

Andreas generously made time to address some of the challenges I encountered with my prototype. However, conveying my ideas was quite a challenge, as I sometimes struggle with articulating them effectively. Nonetheless, I'm confident that my intentions will become clearer once I've completed the first draft of my prototype.

During our discussion, Andreas posed several thought-provoking questions for me to contemplate. I sensed that there might have been a misunderstanding, but I found it challenging to pinpoint and address the source of the confusion. While I've already outlined my plans for the entire year, my current focus is primarily on building the core structure of the prototype before diving into the finer details. It's possible that Andreas might have misunderstood the scope of this prototype, perceiving it as my final graduation project. However, I should clarify that this prototype represents just one facet of my project. I intend to develop several more prototypes to enrich the speculative narrative or to refine and build upon this one.

One intriguing perspective that Andreas raised was related to the documentation of the 'discourse' that will unfold as part of my project. He inquired about the specific platforms or spaces where this 'discourse' would occur, as well as how I intend to ensure that such a 'discourse' indeed takes place. These questions, particularly the last one, represent a gap that I haven't yet fully addressed. However, there's a part of me that believes delving too deeply into this aspect at this stage might be somewhat abortive, as its success might be contingent on the outcome of the prototype. Nonetheless, it's beneficial to remain mindful of this aspect, as there may be an opportunity to directly address it through my prototype.

When Andreas was referring back to my RPO, I concurred with his observation that my title might contain overly complex language. This is a facet I recognize I should focus on refining in my dissertation. When he was going through my research objectives, I realized that he hadn’t gone through it comprehensively yet. I dedicated a substantial amount of time and effort to crafting the RPO to ensure it encompassed all the intricate details. Additionally, I sought input from numerous individuals who proofread it before I finalized and submitted it. The RPO, in my view, should ideally serve as a comprehensive document that effectively communicates the essence of my research.

I couldn't help but notice that most of the frustrating issues stemmed from seemingly small and simple mistakes. It's a recurring pattern that becomes evident when I seek guidance, and it's a pattern I encounter nearly every semester. The challenge I faced with the facial detection algorithm's accuracy traced back to the adjustment I had made in the input resolution to boost my framerate. Running at an eighth of the original resolution inadvertently reduced the pixel sizes, rendering some faces undetectable. With that out of the way, I don’t think I’ll find the need to switch over to YOLO (another facial detection algorithm).

During the session, one of the key topics we addressed was the process of replicating the detected face and extracting its color values. While I grasped the conceptual steps involved, I was uncertain about the specific tools needed to execute this task. With Andreas' guidance, he assisted me in identifying the crucial tx, ty, tw, and th values that would enable me to effectively copy the image. I had already set aside a designated learning day for this week, during which I plan to thoroughly explore all the operator families in TouchDesigner and pinpoint the ones that will be most beneficial for my research.


Notes & sketches from the session

Timeline for the remaining weeks

As I tried to draft a realistic timeline for the remaining weeks, I encountered challenges in finding the right balance between the dissertation and the prototype. It became evident that a significant portion of the dissertation's content relied heavily on the progress of the prototype. However, I found myself grappling with a considerable software literacy barrier, hindering my progress.

Nevertheless, I recognize the necessity of having some dissertation content by Week 16. This includes laying out a preliminary framework for my critical journal and providing an overview of my overall progress. To manage my workload effectively, I have adjusted my plans for the two prototypes, prioritizing functionality over aesthetics.

I also remain open to the possibility of encountering additional software literacy challenges as I continue. Therefore, I am prepared to adapt and revise my schedule as needed to ensure I am well-prepared for the upcoming submissions in Week 16.

Weeks 10–15 timeline

RPO to Dissertation

As I transitioned from my Research Proposal Outline (RPO) to my dissertation, I scrutinized the content with fresh eyes and identified inconsistencies between the introduction and research objectives. The term 'personalization' in the introduction and title had the potential to mislead readers and had become a source of confusion. Andreas also raised this concern, affirming the need for a change. Consequently, I revisited my RPO and made the decision to remove the word 'personalization' altogether.

During this process, I recognized an opportunity to strengthen my introduction by emphasizing the long-term implications of algorithm dilemmas. Highlighting the broader problem could provide a more compelling context. I also considered reinforcing the use of speculative design by explaining how it differs from conventional education, emphasizing that learning occurs through critical reflection. Speculative design offers a unique avenue for education, particularly in terms of the serendipitous discovery of my prototype, whether in exhibitions or on social media. This broader reach could also extend to the digital space, allowing my prototype to exist not only physically but also in the digital realm.

Upon revisiting my research approach and method, I noted that the critical journal framework inherently functions as part of the research through design documentation. This realization led to some confusion regarding whether I should use the term 'critical journal' or 'RtD.' Personally, I felt that 'RtD' was more relevant, considering it's the primary approach I plan to adopt. I decided to consult with Andreas for further guidance before making a final decision. As I delved into the process of designing prototypes, I began to recognize how this iterative process could inform my research and yield new insights.

Consequently, I started drafting the outline for the dissertation discussion. At this stage, everything remains somewhat rough and unpredictable, except for the user testing phases, which are a significant component of the RtD iterative process.

Commenting on RPO for edits


Critical Journal outline

Dissertation Presentation

I viewed the dissertation presentation as an opportunity to establish a foundation for my research and reframe key points. My intention was not to make substantial changes beyond this stage.

First and foremost, I decided to alter the title of my research. I removed the term "personalized" and sought a new title that could better encompass the scope of my research. Initially, I had considered a title aligned with the creation of my prototype, akin to titles like 'The Toaster Project.' However, I couldn't discern a clear alignment with the content in my Research Proposal Outline (RPO). Now, with a clearer understanding of my prototype's overall purpose – the development of an unethical algorithm curator – the title more effectively reflects the research's focus. It's intriguing how the title paradoxically contradicts the research theme.

The background, context, and methods sections were already well-established, making their transfer to the dissertation relatively straightforward. As for the Research through Design (RtD) outline, as mentioned earlier, it remains somewhat vague. I introduced an optional step, recognizing the need for an alternative approach should my prototype fail to spark the desired discourse. If that occurs, I'll need to explore other methods for generating discourse or measuring algorithm literacy.

Upon reflection, I identified two significant challenges: a lack of code literacy and technical software skills. Finding tutorials for my specific goals is already challenging, and finding resources that combine two different software platforms, such as TouchDesigner and Python, is even more elusive.

Another area where I find myself lacking is the alignment of my prototype with the broader research goals. I perceive a gap in solidifying the aspect of fostering algorithm literacy. It currently feels like a prediction that people will gain education through their interaction with my artifact. I haven't yet fully considered the audience for the measurements I plan to conduct, or the tools I will use for measurement. Furthermore, I question whether I truly require proof of fostering algorithm literacy.

Presentation slides