Simplicity in Aurora Machine

The third time the questionnaire was used was during the initial test in the wild of a prototype in a design research project DiAr- We, creating innovations by combining Arctic natural phenomena with digital innovation.

Aurora Machine can be thought of as an

interactive amusement park or science centre attraction aimed at visitors — mainly families. The work was presented in SantaPark, which is a Christmas-themed amusement park in Rovaniemi. Participation in the work happens in two phases and places: first, a photograph is taken of the visitors and attached to an RFID- tag embedded on a 3D-printed snowflake. The snowflake is given to the individual visitor to wear around their neck. In the second phase, the snowflake is placed on the “aurora machine” — on top of a hidden mobile phone, which reads the RFID-tagged image and pro- jects it to the wall, reflected through a pool of water. The photographic situation was staged so that there was a bright-coloured cloth in the bottom of the photo. The photograph is projected in such a way that the bright colour is only reflected through the water, and ap- pears rippled on the wall on top of the people in the photo. On top of the table, a melting ice block was positioned, so that dripping water caused reflections, which looked a little like

auroras. Figure 30. Questionnaire participant background info in Aurora Machine.

Age Over 65 4 % 50-65 years 8 % 30-50 years 58 % 18-30 years 21 % Under 18 8 %

Time spent with the work

1-5 min 92 %

< 1 min 8 %

Earlier experience with interactive art Some experience 21 % Not so much experience 79 % Sex Female 59 % Male 41 % But is it art? Both 50 % Art 21 % Neither 13 % Design 17 %

Would change something about the work?

No 54 %

Yes 46 %

Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art

The context — an amusement park — brought in a different type of audience, specifically families with small children, although the survey was mostly filled in by the parents. Perhaps surprisingly, the work was seen more as an artwork than Climatable was. Participant back-

grounds are visible in Figure 30. The installation asked participants to participate in the taking of photos, in listening to a story (told by an Elf!) about the Aurora Machine (Picture 13), then in locating where to place the snowflake in the installation. The ultimate goal was to try to get people to manipulate the auroras on the screen by trying to get the ice to melt faster to increase water flow, but in many occasions, they had to be instructed to figure out how to do it. Me and researcher Ismo Alakärppä were present at the machine, sometimes guiding the use of work, but mainly observing its usage, while researcher Elisa Jaakkola acted as the elf introducing the

Aurora Machine to SantaPark visitors. There were a lot of things which did not work out the

way we wanted in the installation: it wasn’t obvious to the people what they had to do when they arrived at the installation. When they figured it out (or when we told them in some cases) the location where the snowflake was to be placed was not always easy to find. After this, some visitors realised they could (and should) touch the block of ice, but making it melt faster started to be physically challenging (Picture 14). All of these problems can be also discussed through the lens of the Simplicity Framework, and the answers to the questionnaire more or less support the observations: some visitors found it easier to use, some more difficult. The research project deals with using natural materials, such as snow, ice and water for interaction. However, for many of the visitors, the “magic” of seeing their picture appear on the wall without visible tech-

Table 13. Perceived Qualities of Simplicity and simplicity of the design elements in Aurora Machine.

Qualities of Simplicity Simplicity _{by reduction} Simplicity by organi­ sation Simplicity of affor­ dances Simplicity of tangi­ bility Simplicity of intuitive­ ness Simplicity of famili­ arity Weighted averages

Weighted simplicity average scores (1 = totally disagree, 5

= totally agree) 3.89 3.73 3.64 3.72 3.23 2.93 3.52

Design elements Physical and spatial design

Informa­

tion design Graphic design Audio design

Designing interac­ tivity

Weighted averages

Weighted simplicity average scores (1 = totally disagree, 5

176

7 Evaluating Simplicity

nology seemed to be the most exciting part of the experience. While this project centres around experience design, focusing on simplicity could improve the interactive situation: this could involve designing the interaction with ice and water as the main focal point by removing unnec- essary elements, focusing on physical and spatial design, and making clear what is tangible and what is not. Thinking about natural affordances and familiar aspects of interaction with water and ice, e.g. letting people play with water directly, could provide a more unique experience.

In the questionnaire, average scores for simplicity are quite high, although individual val- ues range a bit. I think the survey also reflects the mostly positive general feeling the visitors had after the experience, as designers we noted many things that went wrong and which we would do differently if the work was to be rebuilt on some other occasion (it was a temporary instal- lation for just one day). Different average simplicity calculations based on surveys gave scores from 3.4 to 3.83. Table 13 presents the results for Aurora Machine.