One alternative we considered was sticking to our initial design involving physical balls that users would interact with. While this concept had some visual appeal, we ultimately rejected it because it limited user engagement and did not align well with our goal of incorporating various class concepts such as sensors, digital fabrication, and visualization. Additionally, managing the physical movement of the balls would have introduced mechanical complexities and reduced the educational impact of the installation.
Another potential option was using motion sensors instead of tilt sensors for detecting user interactions. While motion sensors could have been effective, we chose tilt sensors because they offered more precise feedback and better integration with our chosen design. Tilt sensors allowed us to tailor the interactions to specific objects, making the experience more engaging and intuitive.
In the coding phase, we could have opted for a simpler visualization method that did not rely on alternating videos in Processing. However, this would have reduced the educational value and visual impact of the project.Â
These decisions reflect our commitment to balancing functionality, interactivity, and educational impact, ensuring the project fulfilled its goals while making the best use of the tools and techniques we learned in class.