Group Number and Name: Group 9, Varpex

Group Members: Abbi, Dillon, Prerna and Sam

Project Summary: Our project provides a new musical listening experience through a jacket that vibrates with the bass.

Introduction

Over the past few months, we have developed a jacket that provides a new means of experiencing music. There are 12 motors that line the jacket and provide sensation. There is a box that plugs into the jacket and produces the sensation. A user puts on the jacket, plugs in their headphones and MP3 player to the box, and connects the jacket to the box. They play their music using their MP3 player and this causes vibration of the motors. In this report, we evaluate the ease of setup of the system and how well it provides an enjoyable experience for our users. This experience includes both listening to music with the sensation of the motors while sitting and walking and the experience when the music is off and participants wear it as they would a normal jacket.

Implementation and Improvements

Please click here for our P5 submission

Changes since P5:

• New box: We switched to a plastic box because we were concerned about the possibility of the cardboard igniting from a spark should something go wrong with the electronics.

• We labelled the ports on the box for clarity.

Method

1. Participants

We solicited volunteers through our eating clubs and student organizations. The students that responded expressed interest in trying our prototype, knowing that its purpose was providing a new way of experiencing music. The students that ultimately tried the jacket all enjoyed music, but often of different genres. All enjoyed the feeling of music experienced when listening to live music. We tried to draw from the general student body so these students had a wide range of technical and musical knowledge. Participants were all aged 19-21, students at the university, and live in dormitories.

2. Apparatus

The tests were conducted in the undergraduate ELE lab. We chose to perform the tests there so we could more easily troubleshoot any technical problems with our system. The equipment we used were a set of headphones, a phone-based mp3 player, our jacket of embedded motors and the box containing our system. These items together represent the complete set-up one would need to actually use our system in a non-lab setting, so we are confident that the testing we do today represents well how someone might actually use our system to feel music in real life.

3. Tasks

As in the past, our system does not exactly conform to the “three tasks” paradigm. Our study, however, does try to give the user a sense of how they might use the jacket in one of the three settings we have described previously: listening to music in your room (easy),  listening to music in a public library (medium), listening to music while walking out and about (hard). They are little changed from P5. These tasks represent three times when people commonly listen to music via headphones. In this scenario, participants listened to music first while sitting in a chair as well as while interacting with us for the first part of the testing phase. We then had the users stand up and walk around the lab a few times while listening to music. These scenarios gave us a good idea of how users would react in the three original tasks.

4. Procedure

We first welcomed our participants and they filled out the consent form and the first page of our google form. This form asked demographic information and asked about music preferences. After they filled out this initial form, we explained the system to the user and asked them to set it up. We gave them an overall description but did not give them specific instructions for setup. Participants then set up the system and asked questions when necessary. We asked for their initial feedback on the setup process and confusing aspects of the design. Next, we had them listen to music for few minutes however they felt comfortable. We then asked for their feedback about the jacket without any music playing (and no vibrations). We also went through a series of questions to understand how pleasurable the experience was and where it could be improved. As we interviewed participants, we observed their behavior for fidgeting and signs of discomfort. Participants then walked around with the system to test how it felt while walking. We asked for feedback on comfort and sensation in this task as well. At the end, we opened a general conversation with the participant about the experience and asked how it could be improved.

Test Measures

As mentioned before, our prototype is not directed towards helping a user improve any sort of objective measure of a task. Therefore our testing sought to solicit subjective evaluations of things like comfort, sensation, and likelihood of using the jacket for one of the three tasks we thought would be good usage scenarios.

We ultimately collected a wide variety of subjective measures. Questions regarding ratings were asked on a scale of 0-5. For the full list of questions, see the Google form in the appendix. The subject matter of the data collected included:

Demographic Data:

• Musical preferences/opinions of electronica
• Frequency of concert-going
• Frequency of music-listening outside of live music setting

Ease-of-use data:

• Logs of users attempting to use jacket with little-to-no instruction
• Self-evaluation of difficulty in putting on jacket
• User perception of valuable information in jacket-use instructions

Comfort/Likelihood of use data:

• Comfort of jacket relative to a non-vibrating jacket when jacket is off.
• Comfort of jacket while sitting down and standing up.
• Adjectives used to describe jacket.
• Likelihood of using jacket relative to amount user currently listens to music in different settings.
• Desire to own jacket.

Results and Discussion

Our test subjects came to us with a diverse array of musical interests- when asked for their top three musical genres, over 12 distinct genres were named among the subjects. Interestingly only one of them named “electronica” in their top three, which was one of the genres we had targeted as a good candidate for “feeling” music. No matter what their tastes were reported to be we first had the users test the jacket using the song “Thunder Bay” by Hudson Mohawke. One of our users who described dubstep as “overrated, boring, tuneless” still reported a positive experience with the jacket, describing it as “fun” and “interesting.” When we asked users to try the jacket with their preferred music, however, they responded much more positively- that same user with a lower opinion of dubstep and electronica later tried the jacket with music from her favorite artist (“Bad Romance” by Lady Gaga), and reported an even more positive experience. This is a promising development that could expand our target user base, but it will require some modification of the jacket. Currently, the jacket is capable of responding to frequencies below 160 Hz. The intensity of vibrations is controlled by a comparator which allows current to flow through the motors for a particular fraction of the given low frequency wave. In genres like dubstep with lots of heavy bass, this fraction can be fairly low and still produce lots of sensation since the dominating frequencies are below 160 Hz. In other genres, the concentration of bass is lower so this fraction needs to be increased to produce a comparable sensation. We can give the user the ability to adjust this fraction using a potentiometer so they can calibrate it themselves to the best sensitivity of their preferred music. (Perhaps this could even be done in a future iteration on a microcontroller like the Arduino, where a simple pre-processing step could analyze a song to find the ideal threshold level with no overhead for the actual performance of the jacket). It’s certainly a functionality that people seemed to expect already; it appeared that people would play with the volume knob in our usability test in the expectation that it would modify the sensitivity of the bass already, so adding that function is definitely appropriate.

We were also pleased to see that users rated the comfort of the jacket highly- on a scale of 0-5, 0 being not at all comfortable and 5 being as comfortable as any other jacket, the users rated the jacket on average as a 4.1 when worn while sitting down, and a 3.5 when standing up and walking. There were other factors, however, that affected the user experience when wearing the jacket. Users- generally women of shorter stature- reported that the jacket’s loose-fit may have interfered with their ability to receive the full effect of the vibrating motors. Further, no one said that they would describe the jacket as “fashionable.” Three of the users even went as far as to say they would describe the jacket as “ugly.” Jacket fit between users was always going to be an issue, since a men’s hoodie can only fit so many people. In a next iteration however we will try to make the vibrating motor assembly more easily secured to the jacket using velcro rather than sewn-on pockets for the motors. That way, it can be more easily placed in jackets of varying style and size. Another inhibiting factor on user comfort was the fact that while up and walking, the users had to carry around the box containing our system with them. This was unfortunately a limitation on our prototype, which was implemented on two small breadboards attached to the three 9-volt batteries needed. In our next iteration we are exploring the possibility of soldering the project to a protoboard to allow for a more portable form-factor. In the meantime, we have to put the issue of the large box aside as our own version of a “wizard-of-oz” set up, since we never really expected that users would have to carry it around.

People generally found the jacket easy and intuitive to use, but certain prototyping aspects were noted to be cumbersome. The test subjects all said that having to carry around a bulky box was inconvenient, and a more intuitive plug and play interface easily built into the jacket would be preferable. Test subjects also found the direction of the volume knob unintuitive since it rotated in the opposite direction to standard knobs. Both these interface issues are ones which we plan to address and fix in the next prototype. Another important design idea which emerged from this stage of testing was customizability. Fit of the jacket was a problem for some test subjects, and we believe it can be addressed by redesigning the jacket into a frame of motors that can potentially fit into many different jacket sizes. While this design isn’t something we can implement in the next iteration, it is a good idea for future design changes. In summary, we would like to implement the following changes to our jacket for the next iteration:

• Change the direction of the volume knob to make it more intuitive.
• Integrate the circuitry into the jacket so the wearer is not required to carry the box.
• Add a threshold knob so the sensations can be customized based on individual comfort levels.
• Make the power switches more accessible to ease the plug-and-play interface design.

The three main tasks we listed when thinking of use cases for our jacket were as follows:

1. Listening to music while walking to class
2. Listening to music while studying in the dorm room, library or other such quiet place.
3. Listening to music while in a silent disco.

Our test subjects said they would use the jacket under all the three listed situations. The idea of using it at the Silent Disco was very popular, but while thinking about performing everyday tasks, testers were concerned about the storage of the jackets when not in use. One of the testers was concerned about walking around with the jacket, and how the process would work with motors and wires in the jacket. Final additional concerns that were raised included wearing a jacket in warm weather, its durability, and its washability. These are secondary to our primary goal of creating a new music listening experience but will be key in future iterations of the jacket.

Appendices

• Consent form

• Google Form with responses

Raw Data

• Results Spreadsheet 

Group Number: 9

Group Name: VARPEX

Group Members: Abbi, Dillon, Prerna, Sam

One-Sentence Project Summary:

We have designed a jacket that connects to your iPod/other music-playing device to allow users to feel the low bass present in music wherever they are.

Task Descriptions – What we Chose to Support in this Working Prototype

Our working prototype supports the following tasks: first, we want our prototype to help users experience music without disturbing their neighbors at home. We call this task “easy,” since its primary requirement is proper transformation of bass to vibration. It doesn’t need to be portable, very quiet, or inconspicuous. Second, we want to enable users to experience/listen to music in a quiet environment (such as in a library, or on a public bus) without disturbing people around them. We would evaluate this as a “medium-level” task, as it requires us to incorporate a compact, relatively portable and inconspicuous design into our prototype. The third and last task, however, is for our users to be able to walk in public with this jacket while still receiving the full “concert sensation” experience. This task will be hardest, since the jacket must effectively replicate the desired sensation while being inconspicuous, quiet, and completely portable. If our jacket too obviously appeared to be of some value, this would pose a safety risk to the user who might become a target of crime.

Discrete fit on the back. Cannot tell the motors are in there.

Did our Choice of Tasks Change from P3 and P4?

Our tasks did not change much as a result of P3/P4, since P3/P4 focused more on our efforts to see if we could properly replicate the sensation of low bass using vibrating motors. While our results from P4 influenced the design of our jacket, the results reinforced our ability to have our jacket fulfill the tasks we had already envisioned; we found the motors to be effective in replicating the feeling, and our system sound. We will describe in the next section how P4 influenced our design.

The Revised Interface Design

1. Changes from P3/P4 – Motor Placement

Perhaps the largest discovery we made as a result of our first iteration of prototyping was the importance of motor placement on creating sensation. We had earlier theorized that bone conductivity could be an asset in replicating the low bass sensation. Upon testing motor placement in P4 however, we discovered that users responded negatively to having the vibration right up against their bones. The focus of the motors, we saw, should be on more muscular regions of the body. This influenced our placement of the pockets containing motors in our jacket.

The P4 Jacket (left) and the P5 Jacket (right), showing differences in motor placement

2. Changes in Form Factor

We also showed our participants in P4 and asked them about the likelihood of their using our system through the form factor of the hoodie jacket. Most participants responded that while they would consider wearing the jacket, they felt pleasurable sensations most when the motors were in as close contact with their body as possible. This would have to be achieved through some sort of undershirt or thinner material. We ultimately decided that we were comfortable with the jacket for this iteration of our prototype- the jacket we’ve used is made of relatively thin cotton, and since it will come complete with 12 motors we expect the sensation of twelve motors to be strong enough to compensate for thicker material (in P4, we only tested the sensation of three motors on the body). This jacket is also a tighter fit than the one we showed users in P4.

Tighter form fit, plug-and-play design

Motors are now on the inside, discretely placed at locations where sensations are most pleasurable on the back

3. Changes in Technical Approaches

The original design plan for this project was the analyze music using software. Two Arduinos were required for this task since we needed more timers for the application than could be provided by a single Arduino. The first Arduino would accept audio, using 64 samples taken over a window, the arduino would use a Fast Hartley Transform to determine the magnitude of all frequencies below 200 Hz (divided into 32 bins). The frequency bin and magnitude of the largest frequency would be sent to the second arduino which controls the motors. This process is repeated constantly as the audio plays.

The second Arduino, using the information passed from the first, would control the motors in the jacket using a pulse width with a duty cycle oscillating in a sinusoidal pattern. The frequency and magnitude of the sinusoid would reflect the frequency and magnitude of the dominant frequency calculated by the first Arduino.

Links to Arduino Codes:

Code 1

Code 2

It is important to note that the audio fed into the first Arduino would have to be passed through a low pass filter since higher frequencies would alias due to the low sampling frequency. This kind of problem would cause high frequency vocals or symbols to be interpreted as low bass.

This system works, however, the time necessary for the first arduino to obtain 64 samples and calculate a FHT would cause motor actuation to occur after a .21 second delay. Since this would cause a noticeable delay between hearing and feeling the music, it was important for this delay to be eliminated. Two options existed for us:

First, we could build a delay circuit which would delay audio by .21 seconds before it enters the headphones. This would require ordering of a particular chip and a number of accurately valued resistors and capacitors to tune this circuit.

The second option, which we chose was to build comparators after the low pass filter to replace the arduinos. This system would generate a digital signal from the bass tones above a certain threshold, therefore performing the same functionality of the arduino’s software in hardware. We chose this solution since it would in fact be cheaper and even produce a more desirable feel in the motors.

Overview and Discussion of our New Prototype

1. Ease of Use

Our current iteration of our prototype has implemented the fundamental feature of our system- the actuation of vibrating motors to replicate the feeling of low bass in music. The circuit performing this function is implemented and stored inside of a box that allows the user to simply plug in their phone to experience the bass of whatever music they desire. We have discovered that this works well across a variety of devices (from Samsung Galaxy S3s to iPhone 5s). Once plugged in the user can still control regular sound volume on their headphones as before, but from a dedicated knob on the circuit (the voltage output from the device must remain constant).

Otherwise the system displays true “plug-and-play” functionality. Since no general microcontroller like an Arduino was required, our system will be even easier for the user to set up. The motors are likewise completely removable from the jacket- a desirable feature, since we want our jacket to be machine washable.

The connecter which plugs into the arduino which controls the motors

2. No “Wizard of Oz”

Technical aspects of the jacket aside, we also wanted to test if the jacket can be worn comfortably while the system is in use. Unfortunately, the box containing the circuit used to implement the audio signal filter is a bit bulky. For the purposes of prototyping, this can be held off to the side while a user tests the wearing of the jacket. In future iterations of the prototype (or in the jacket’s final form), we could order printed circuit boards so we can have a sleeker design, but that is infeasible and too permanent given the scope of our current prototyping phase. Otherwise, our prototype requires no “wizard of oz” techniques to simulate our systems function. With the frequency filtering implemented, and the motors connected to the jacket, the user should have access to all of the basic functionality we expect them to have at this stage of prototyping.

Box containing the circuit

Usage Description Video

A close up of the vibrating Motors

Features not Included in this Prototype

One feature we did not implement in this prototype was the variation of sensation location on the body. We have considered the possibility that something like a lower bass frequency might feel more pleasurable on the lower part of the back while something higher might be felt on the upper part of the back. This would have to be confirmed in further user testing, and for this iteration we want the user to get the experience of this jacket at “full power” before beginning to vary the sensation by location on body. Therefore, we decided to leave off this feature.

Storyboards for Unimplemented Features

1. Different Sensations on Different Parts of the Body

Low frequencies on the lower back

High frequencies on the higher back

2. A Phone Interface that Allows the Wearer to Control the Frequencies for their Own Comfort

Sliding interface allows the user to control frequencies

Can change the frequencies based on comfort and situations

Group Number: 9

Group Name: VARPEX

Group Members: Abbi, Dillon, Prerna, Sam

Project Summary:

We are creating a jacket that allows users to experience their music through vibrating motors.

Description of the Test Method:

Once our subject arrives, we tell them our mission statement and inform them about what they will experience in testing our prototype. Since our system involves a significant amount of physical interaction with the subject, it is especially important that we demonstrate the system to make sure the subject will feel comfortable. We want to make sure that the subject would find the level of physicality required to prototype our system acceptable, so we will describe what will happen in the test before they have to go through it themselves. We also present the subject a consent form more formally detailing the experience. It also informs them that their identity will be kept confidential within the lab group (Click here to see the consent form).

We sent an email out to several listservs soliciting “consumers of dance/electronica/dubstep or just people who like feeling a good beat” to participate in the testing of a system that would allow them to “feel” music. The subjects we ultimately chose perfectly fit into our target audience. Two of them were regular rave/concert-goers who enjoy the physical sensation of feeling music. Our third subject enjoys music more casually, but still goes to the Street regularly. All three, we believed, would offer the best feedback in relating the sensation provided by the vibrating motors to the pleasurable sensations of loud concerts.

For our testing, we were required to work with our prototype the undergraduate ELE laboratory. Only there could we have access to the power supply for the vibrating motors. (We cannot power the motors from the Arduino since the total current drawn would probably burn out the pins) Since the task of “feeling” music can be done anywhere however, location was not a salient aspect of our prototyping phase.

To conduct the study, Dillon greeted the subjects and read them the demo script and acquired their informed consent. He would then introduce the subjects to Abbi, who would proceed to test the prototype band of motors in different areas of the user’s body and solicit their reaction. Abbi’s script was roughly as follows:

“First, we are going to see where you prefer to feel the sensation of the vibrating motors. If you are not comfortable with a motor’s location, please let us know. We are also going to vary how loosely the motors are in contact with your body. [Hold motor band up to different parts of back] How does the vibration sensation compare between different parts of your body? Which motors along your back elicit the strongest sensation? How would you rank the different locations of the motors on your body? How would you compare the different levels of pressure you felt?”

The motors were placed on various parts of the participants’ backs. We tested the shoulder blades, horizontally across the spine from the upper back to the lower back, as well as the sides of the lower back.

Testing procedure on the lower back

Testing procedure on the mid-upper back

Testing procedure on the upper back, between shoulders

This line of questioning proceeded until the user offered sufficient feedback about how different motors’ locations on the back compared to each other. Sam and Prerna recorded the user’s feedback for later consideration. Once this phase of testing was complete, we introduced the user to the jacket prototype and explained how the motors they just felt would be embedded in it. We asked them to rate how likely they would be to wear it/ how they would use it, what sort of articles of clothing they typically wear, and if they believe the best sensations they felt in the first phase of prototyping would be achievable through the jacket.

Results Summary:

We had 3 user testers – 2 female and 1 male student who enjoyed listening to music, albeit under different circumstances. Testers invariably said they preferred the tighter fit of the motors much better than the looser fit. They found it slightly uncomfortable when the fit was looser and felt the experience was a lot more pleasurable when the motors were held tightly against their backs. In terms of location, users did not enjoy the sensation on their shoulders, and preferred the vibrating motors located on their middle and lower backs. In terms of the vertical placement, we found that our male user tester did not experience the sensation around the spine as well as our female test subjects did.

 All three also said they preferred the sensation on their muscular regions of the back rather than on the bony regions, which they said seemed slightly uncomfortable. The most pleasurable sensations were experienced in the mid-lower back region, around the muscular parts. We also asked questions about wearability and usability of our jacket, and test subjects had varying opinions. While one said he would prefer the jacket/ hoodie form due to portability and easy of use, the other two said they might prefer a tighter, undershirt/ vest setup due to closer contact with the skin. They also said they would be likely to use the vest under specific circumstances of artistic immersions such as a silent disco or a visit to a sculpture garden.

Result Discussion:

We had several takeaways from our user testing process for P3. While we had initially played with the idea of bone conduction to create an immersive music experience, we saw that due to the nature of the vibration motors and the close contact they have with the wearers body, it would be better to focus on placing them on muscular regions for comfort. All the test subjects preferred the sensation of vibrating motors on the muscular parts of the back rather than on the bonier regions. We also found a slight difference in the locations which test subjects found pleasurable – since our male test subject did not enjoy the experience along the spine as much due to wider shoulders, as compared to our female test subjects.

The mid-lower back emerged as the location with the best sensations and this gave us useful insight about the placement of the motors in our jacket/ vest. Talking to our test subjects about the usability, we got several ideas about the form of our project – whether to keep it a hoodie or play with the idea of making it an undershirt. Since test subjects preferred the tighter fit, we did decide to keep the form factor, either a hoodie or undershirt, tighter so the motors can be closer to the body.

Future Plans – A Higher Fidelity Prototype:

At this point, we are ready to proceed to a higher-fidelity prototype. This step was very valuable in understanding how our target users respond to the vibration sensations at various locations on their back. Now that we have gained information about the location and pressure of the motors, we will decide on a form factor. We expect that we will next create a more portable device. We will test this device (before P6) on a few individuals to address major usability problems or difficulties with sensation and fit. Because we’re constructing an experience, we are focused on testing sensation rather than task performance.

Group Number: 9

Group Name: VARPEX

Group Members: Abbi, Dillon, Prerna, Sam

In this assignment, Sam was responsible for writing up the mission statement and brainstorming prototypes. Dillon was responsible for writing up the discussion of the prototype and brainstorming prototypes. Abbi was responsible for building the prototypes. Prerna was responsible for describing the prototype and how it applies for our tasks.

Mission Statement:

The purpose of this project is to create a prototype piece of clothing which can take input from an MP3 player and create sensations on a user so that the user can feel lower bass tones. The sensation will be generated using vibrating motors. The device should be comfortable and portable. This product will allow users who are unable to generate loud, feelable bass tones for reasons of cost, noise pollution or portability to overcome these obstacles and feel low bass tones. The current design of the system proposed would use a microcontroller to analyse music tones and actuate motors spaced on the user’s chest. The motors will be incorporated into clothing for ease of use and the microcontroller will be battery-powered and portable. The prototype at this stage aims to discover basically how users will react to primitive actuation from the motors (to determine placement and power). This prototype will also aid in the design of the clothing (fit, weight, etc.). The goal of this team is to produce this final product without going over budget. In particular, our focus is on user experience.

Prototype Description

Since our device does not have a visual user interface, we decided to use the lo-fi prototypes to perform further tests on its usability and functionality. With this in mind, we will have two iterations of our lo-fi prototype. In the first iteration, motors will be placed in a band of tape that can be tightly attached to the users body with the motors contacting the user around the spine. This will allow us to test if the motors (and modulation of their intensity) properly replicate the sensation we found users feel in P2. The second portion of our prototype will implant these motors in a loose-fitting sweater. This will allow us to test our form factor- hopefully the jacket offers the user the appropriate level of sensation, but it is possible a tighter-fit will be needed in order to achieve the desired level of intensity.

Use of Prototype in Testing

In P2, we identified the following key tasks of our users:

• Experience/listen to music without disturbing the quiet environment of the people around you (in the library while studying, in lab, etc.)

• Experience/listen to music while being mobile (walking to class, in the gym, etc.)

• Experience/listen to music without disturbing residential neighbors (roommates, suitemates, etc.)

These tasks have informed the characteristics our system needs: proper replication of physical sensations felt from loud speakers and portability. From these characteristics, we’ve determined two fundamental questions we will answer in P4:

1. Can the vibrating motors replicate the feeling of powerful bass tones from speakers?

2. Does the form factor of wearing the motors in the jacket produce the proper sensations?

To answer these two questions, we’ll explore user’s responses to the intensity of the motors and the comfort and wearability of motors worn on a loose fitting jacket. Since the differences in our three tasks are linked with the user’s usage environment, and do not differentiate between the actual design of the device, we decided to use P3 to build a prototype that allows us to test the comfort and wearability of the device, as well as test how users feel about the physical locations of the motors in the jacket. This will help us better understand how and where users want to feel the sensations.

As our mission is heavily dependent on these sensations, a paper prototype or otherwise non-functioning system would not allow us to test anything that would help us see if our proposed system would properly accomplish our mission. At its core, our prototype will have three motors.

For the first iteration, we will see how strongly the vibrations are conducted through the motors when attached closely to your spine via a tight band. It will allow us to understand how comfortable users are with these vibrations and whether they feel it accurately replicates the live music sensation. In the second iteration, we will attach the motors to a jacket, which will allow us to test for fit, comfort and wearability, which is key to every task we listed above.

Basic Prototype Demo

A Closer Look at the Prototype

Testing the basic fit of the prototype

Our prototype – understanding how the motors fit in

Our prototype – attaching the motors to the band

Fitting the prototype across the back to test sensations

Fitting the prototype over the spine to test sensations

Adding motors to the jacket to test wearability

Second iteration of the prototype – testing comfort and usability with a hoodie

 Prototype Discussion

Our prototypes required us to implement three of our motors- there is no lower-fidelity method to test our system. We want to test if the vibrating motors at all replicate the feeling users get in going to concerts. Our desired system should also be as ubiquitous as possible. An ideal final product would have the user simply plug their “music-feeling jacket” (or whatever form the product takes) into their iPod, with no interface required at all. This led us to conclude that a paper prototype would not offer us the ability to properly evaluate our system, leading to our implementation of several of our motors.

This made our prototyping process a bit more difficult than we had originally anticipated, since it required us to concentrate more on technical questions that might not otherwise be appropriate at this stage of prototyping (but that we have deemed necessary). For one, how we would power the motors in our prototype became an issue, since it might not be possible to power the motors off of the arduino board due to current limitations. It is these sort of questions that we were forced to wrestle with at an early stage of our prototype. On the bright side, it has forced us to think more practically about what we are hoping to build towards with our prototype.

Group Name: VARPEX

Group Members and Contributions: Abbi Ward, Dillon Reisman, Prerna Ramachandra, Sam Payne

Dillon recorded participant answers and wrote up information about our participants/people we observed and their responses and gathered test subjects.
Sam provided the music and music equipment, recorded the answers to the task analysis questions and gathered test subjects.
Abbi drew some of the sketches and wrote up information about the contextual interviews.
Prerna drew the storyboards, gathered some of the test subjects and helped with conducting interviews and compiled the blog post.

Group Number: 9

Problem and Solution Overview

We are addressing the problem that the concert experience can only be replicated by expensive, non-portable hardware. Further, these systems cause noise pollution in tight-living quarters. We will create an article of clothing worn on the torso that will use vibrating motors to generate stimulus similar to that created by loud bass – that is, a vibrating sensation on the skin. Our solution is portable, relatively inexpensive, and avoids the noise pollution problem.

Description of Users Observed in Contextual Enquiry

The target group of users we observed were students aged 18-22. They all have enjoyed listening to music at eating clubs on weekends or going to the occasional concert. They do these things, however, for a variety of different reasons. Some go to clubs for the social aspect of it (their friends are there, their friends are performing, etc.). Most, however, find the act of listening to the music enjoyable in its own right. The observed users enjoy many forms of music, and for most that includes some form of electronic music, though they had varying opinions on the quality of dubstep specifically. It helps that what is played in clubs is mostly of this type, as opposed to rock or other genres.

Contextual Inquiry Interview Descriptions

We invited six individuals to Sam Payne’s room on a Saturday afternoon. Sam has a good quality subwoofer which we used to experiment with different bass frequencies. We invited individual participants to the room at different times. We introduced ourselves and described the class and the purpose of the questions we were going to ask. For each participant, we walked through a series of questions about their music-listening habits and tried to get a feel for how, when, and why these students are listening to music. We then played a series of frequencies for them (from 110 Hz down to 50Hz) while they stood next to the subwoofer. We asked them to describe the sensation and where they felt it. We then put a foam chair near the subwoofer and had them listen to the tones again. We asked them to describe the sensations again, where they felt it, and how they liked it.

As participants answered our questions, we recorded their answers in this form, which gives a basic outline of the sorts of questions we asked.

Most of our users primarily listen to music in their dorms with laptop speakers. If they go outside, they’ll typically use headphones. These headphones are generally low-quality earbuds rather than slightly higher quality over-the-ear headphones. Many students will listen to music on speakers in whatever lab they’re working in. The participants we interviewed enjoyed a variety of genres, from dubstep and electronica to pop and opera. Even if the participants did not report that electronica or dubstep was very high on their list of favorable genres, they often at the very least appreciated it for its diverse and interesting sound and the “intense” sensation they often got from it.

Users felt the vibrations in very different locations. Some of this difference may have been due to different body types. The tall, thin men we interviewed felt vibrations very strongly in the top of their chest but other participants did not feel these vibrations as strongly. Another area where sensations were strongly felt was in the mid-back, along the spine. Users enjoyed the chair, as opposed to just feeling the vibrations in the air. The chair produces a more intense diffusion of vibration. People likened this feeling to a massage of the back and legs. This suggests that users enjoy the intensity of response and the similarity to the raw air experience may not be as important.

Answers to Task Analysis Questions

1. Who is going to use system?
This system would be for people ages 16-34 who enjoy concerts. They enjoy concerts because of the sensation derived from loud music, and would like to have this same sensation when they listen to music at home.

2. What tasks do they now perform?
They go to concerts when they can, and they play loud music in their home (if they can). Some individuals, such as college students living in dormitories, must listen to music through headphones due to noise pollution.

3. What tasks are desired?
Users would like the concert experience on-the-go and without disturbing their neighbors.

4. How are the tasks learned?
Users already know how to use their headphones and feel music. Our system would be an extension of simply plugging in your headphones.

5. Where are the tasks performed?
People feel music at concerts, parties and in dorms/apartments, if they have good speakers. People listen to music everywhere.

6. What’s the relationship between user & data?
Feeling music is a subjective experience, so our data is the reported experience of users. There may be some loss of data if users cannot describe or are not aware of factors that affect their experience.

7. What other tools does the user have?
Depending on the situation, the user may have headphones or speakers and subwoofers. They also have music-playing devices, such as iPods, computers. This equipment varies in expense.

8. How do users communicate with each other?
At concerts, people communicate through gesture and yelling.

9. How often are the tasks performed?
How often tasks are performed varies between individuals because it depends on the type of equipment they have. Those without subwoofers only feel music at concerts so they may feel music a few times per year. Those with subwoofers may feel music on a daily basis.

10. What are the time constraints on the tasks?
At a concert, the time of the concert constrains when users can listen and feel music. For those with good speakers and subwoofers, the constraint may be the time it takes for your neighbors to call public safety.

11. What happens when things go wrong?
If the concert is cancelled, the police are called, or your speaker breaks, you don’t listen and feel your music.

Descriptions of the Three Tasks

1. Many times, people want to listen to music at a loud volume in their room while     roommate is studying, or without disturbing their neighbors. Many students will listen to music on headphones. However, the physical sensation of listening to music is lost while listening on headphones. This product would allow people to feel that sensation without disturbing those around them. The task of listening to music loudly in your room is easier than the other tasks, but it becomes more difficult as you take into consideration the possibility of disturbing your neighbors.

• Users working outside of their rooms often listen to music while working. The portability of this device allows users to feel music while studying without disturbing those around them.

2. Many students listen to music while walking to class. This of course is done on headphones since speakers are not portable. However, again, the physical sensations of listening to music are lost while listening on headphones. The portability of this product would allow students to listen and feel their music in any setting, and on the go. The task of listening to loud music while moving is difficult, and is even more difficult when you take into consideration the possibility of disturbing other persons.

3. While at concerts, many people enjoy the feeling of music, and some songs are even written to promote these sensations. While producing music, artists could use this product to feel their music and gauge how their music will feel in a concert setting. Attending concerts is difficult due to availability and cost.

Storyboards

Storyboard 1 

Listening to music while walking to class and getting the live music experience

Storyboard 2

Listening to music in the library or lab while doing work

Getting the live music experience while doing work!

Storyboard 3

Listening to music in your room, and getting the live music experience without disturbing your roommate

 Design Sketches

Overview of the jacket, fit and spot to place iPod

Front and back of jacket, and sketch of the motors

Parts of the body affected by the jacket

Interface Design Description

Since our system will be wearable, it will grant the user a lot of freedom over where and when they can ‘feel’ their music. Ideally it will also look inconspicuous in its function; a user should be comfortable simply wearing it as a jacket or other article of clothing. It will still enable the user to simply listen to music should they wish, as they did before, but with the added ability to activate the more immersive ‘feeling’ system through vibrating motors. Currently this ability is not offered by any product on the market- headphones do not offer users the concert-going experience of ‘feeling music’.