Week 3: Parameterization and Systems
Thursday, January 21st Overview
Reading Discussion: 3:30-4:20
In Groups of 2-3, discuss your reactions to the reading.
Mert discusses the “flow of the design process” when tweaking parameters/manipulating variables, as well as the trade off between exposing these parameters for tweaking to aid the user versus having them “clutter” or hinder the design process.
When would exposing parameters help, and when would it complicate the design process? When reflecting on tools that you may use that exposed parameters for tweaking, what are the parts that you like or dislike? How might innate exposed parameters in a development tool, like Mert brings up with Unity, aid in the coding process specifically (would it change the way that you approach coding, or the output)?
2. Suriya discusses how something like Juxtapose would reduce his process of code development and allow a “perfect balance between freedom and constraint.”
What are some of these constraints when exposing parameters? Are they beneficial for the design process or limiting to the user? How might the role of the artist change when using tools that generate multiple design alternatives?
3. Ashley brought up a great point about keeping up documentation throughout her design/making process, especially because oftentimes files get overwritten with each iteration process or design outcome.
Does Juxtapose align with your way of working? What are the different parts of the creative/design/making process that tools like Juxtapose assist with (documentation, code, output, etc.)? Does a tool like this only have organizational/technical benefit or does it have aesthetic value as well?
4. Masood brings up metrics for success in systems like this, specifically speed of iteration and subjective feelings of fluidity of a designer.
How might we evaluate these tools and systems in a broad context? Masood suggests qualitative data on how a designer feels during the process of iteration as an important metric. What might be others?
Follow with a joint group review.
Break: 4:20-4:30
Parameterization Part 2: 4:30-5:10
Setup/ Draw Loop
Processing Tweak Mode- see Inventing on Principle
Basic 3D geometry in Processing
Classes
--Note on issue with P3D with certain versions of OSX --
Simple tuning interfaces using ControlP5
Code example
Creating and ordering variations of a parameterized design
Code example
Introduce week 3 assignment: 5:10-5:20
Assignment
Create a Parametric 3D Form
Using the 3D mode in Processing, create a parameterized 3D form
The form can be a variation of the vase shape demonstrated in class, or a new 3D design that you create using the Processing 3D primitives and shapes. You can create a form that is abstract (i.e. an amorphous shape) or representational (i.e. a chair).
Your program must include the following:
An explicit set of constraints- i.e. the constants in your design
At least one degree of freedom- i.e. the variables in your design
A simple interface that exposes these variables for exploration or tuning. This can include a set of sliders for continuous values, a gallery that generates a range, or something that combines these approaches.
Chose three "successful" outcomes from your parametric system and save screenshots of them.
After creating your design, write a 1 paragraph description of how you chose the constraints and degrees of freedom in your design.
Upload your Processing code, screenshots to your GitHub repository in the week3 directory. Also upload a text or markdown document with your 1 paragraph description. Please upload this material by 6:00 PM Monday evening. We will try out your parametric systems in class on Tuesday January 26th.