Final Evaluation

We initially intended toneglow to be an interactive installation which could bring people together through the means of making music with a physical system. We wanted to make a system which made it easy to create music no matter what ones musical or technological background or experience was, and one which had a close relationship between the movement, lighting produced and sound created.

Technically we had strong ideas from the beginning about toneglow’s construction and implementation and due to this they were not changed too much from their initial conception. We changed:

• Distance sensors on the back became a lever at the top of the string. This was because we felt that distance sensors were unreliable in outputted data, and their orientation would be hard to fix as the balls could spin around and make them face away from the wall. We also did not want to be constrained to just having the project installed next to a wall as we wanted open spaces to be an option for installation.
• We reduced the number of controllers created from our estimated six to eight, down to five. This was partially due to time constraints, and also because we thought the system could become cluttered, and the sound produced could become too ambiguous.
• We did not end up using RGB LEDs primarily because we wanted each side of the ball to light up a certain colour. Also just having two colours reduced the amount of wiring required from each ball from if we had had 3 colours. A system using RGB LEDs could be interesting in future iterations though, as it could let us make any colours we wanted, so the system could be fit into any environment.

Because of our strong ideas from the outset, we faced less issues based around aesthetic design, and more based around technical challenges. For example, the most time consuming challenge we faced was when we wired the LEDs the wrong way and had to think of a way to do it properly which involved returning to the prototype phases. The thought behind building a string potentiometer was also very time consuming, and Lego was a complete and utter moment of divine inspiration which ended up being incredibly successful despite some initial doubts.

Future possibilities?

Much like many projects of the same ilk as toneglow, the possibilities are nearly limitless with how we can expand in physical and musical ideas. Some of the more pressing ideas we thought could be improved are:

• Stronger and more visually appealing housing. As the project progressed, we became more fond of the stripped back aesthetic of the system, but in the installation context in which we want toneglow to shine, ruggedness is quite crucial, and having delicate wires hanging everywhere is not really ideal. The Lego housing, although it did not break catastrophically at any point, definitely has the possibility to do so, especially if someone who hasn’t been versed on the more careful use of toneglow were to be aggressive with it. Even though the Lego works perfectly fine, a more enclosed and bespoke enclosure would definitely work more efficiently and reliably.
• Ambiguity in sound was another main issue. Making the effect which each person has on the audio produced more explicit is an issue which has been faced since day one. Although we feel we helped this issue with harmonic phasing and FM modulation of sine waves to make certain sounds more distinct, there is surely some way to go in the implementation of sound.
• Expanding the project to a larger scale would be incredibly interesting, because at the minute it is installed in what is essentially a 2-dimensional plane, which limits the depth of interaction. Having different units dotted around a room would open up more possibilities for user interaction as they have more options for their bodily orientations.
• Interactions between controllers could also be improved. At the minute, toneglow is quite segmented in the sense that each controller has its own definite function, and that is what it does. Having one controller affecting how another one behaves, or having certain behaviours triggered if many are used at once would add a whole new dimension to the interactions and sounds possible to produce.
• Having different behaviours from variations in use of the toneglow would also be interesting. For example, using acceleration and speed of movement as a control for certain lighting or sound cues could add more interest to the use of the system.
• Code-wise, a small improvement would be to change the smoothing algorithm used for the analogue inputs, at the minute some outliers have unexpected effects on the lights which can happen quite randomly.
• Installation in a wider variety of spaces is definitely something which we want to look into. For example, galleries as an exhibit, or schools as an educational or therapeutic system.

 

In Conclusion

We feel that we surpassed what we set out to achieve, and through the final testing and information from the interviews, the reaction which toneglow elicited was beyond our expectations. We are incredibly happy with what we have produced, and definitely believe that future expansions and possibilities for design are very close on the horizon.