Is art and science really that incongruent?
Creative technology is a relatively new field of work and straddle the border between arts and science, design and development. In his very first episode, Ben shares aspects of what he does as a creative technologist at STUCK, and even plays a sneaky little numbers game to showcase the magic of computational thinking.
Summary
- A creative technologist is a bridge and translator between the design team and the development team, the intersection of art and science
- Other than translating technical lingo so that the work is understood well by both designers and developers, creative technologists also work directly on both the technical and human/aesthetic aspects of the project
- When integrating technology in an interactive touch point, there are 3 distinct components to nail right: hardware, software, and the outer casing to house everything; each has its own set of challenges to resolve
- “Unlike design thinking, where it’s an iterative and prescriptive framework, computational thinking is more like a way of how you would view a problem… [they are] actually the different sides of the same coin. Both of them are trying to work towards an innovative solution.”
- Computational thinking has 4 main pillars: decompositioning, abstraction, pattern recognition, algorithms (breaking things down into a step-by-step recipe)
- For instance, you can simplify a numbers-adding puzzle into a magic square and approach the problem as if it were tic-tac-toe and apply known strategies to solve the puzzle—” changing some complex problem, we funnel it down, we abstracted it, trying to see if there’s any patterns in it. And then we come up with a slightly different strategy to approach this problem.”
- “An art without the technology is just a stationary art. And technology without the arts could be very hard to use or not very intuitive to use.”
Full Transcript
The world’s problems are getting increasingly more complex. So probably we will need design thinking and computational thinking to go hand in hand.
MATTHEW
Hey Ben, welcome to the podcast. Yeah, maybe you can share a little bit about what you do at STUCK.
BEN
Yeah, so I’m working as a creative technologist at STUCK. But the word “creative technologist” is relatively new. And it could mean actually quite different roles in different industries.
In a typical software house, the creative technologist is actually the bridge between the UIUX team and the development team. But here at STUCK, I’m the bridge between the design team and the development team. So in STUCK, the development team could be either the software developer or the hardware developer. I love working in the intersection of art and science, and this is where I operate in.
MATTHEW
Right, so you’re like a translator of sorts between these two teams, you mentioned the creative team, which are the designers, and there’s the developers—and you kind of bridge them both right?
BEN
Yep. So sometimes, the developers and the designers, they speak a very different lingo and the jargons that you use. Sometimes I have to step in and be the translator for them. So I have to translate, like the UIUX requirements into something that the developers can execute.
MATTHEW
Could you give a little bit of an example of how you see this playing out in your role?
BEN
Okay. So for example, designers wish to see a very nice transition between different pages. But then, they are using words and emotions to portray these kind of transitions that they want. But it doesn’t mean anything to the developers. So that’s where I step in, and I understand what the designers are trying to gun for, and then I’ll tell the developers that, hey, the designers actually wanted an “ease transition”. So it’s like slow in and slow out. So that’s the nice transition that they are going for.
So I have to translate design requirements into a lingo that probably the developers can understand.
MATTHEW
Because they are two very—I would say, they are quite different people. Like one thinks in terms of the arts and more human factors, for designers. And for developers, is it more of numbers, and oh, how to get it done in the software?
BEN
So I guess, in their head, when they are viewing the problem, they are looking from a different point of view, whereas the designers will be thinking of how the users will be experiencing the app or interacting with the object. But the developers are thinking of how to execute these kind of things. So in the back of their mind, they will not be thinking about all the human factors, or how cool, or what’s a nice transitions in the app. So that’s where I have to step in and help to translate some of those human factors into the final deliverable.
MATTHEW
Okay, yeah. But I mean, from my observation, when you work, it’s not just about translating: oh okay, this is what the developer wants, or this is not what the developer is facing, and this is not what the designer wants. You also seem to solve the problem or help to facilitate this solving of the problem?
BEN
That’s right. So sometimes, for example, the developers will meet a technical roadblock. But the designers do not understand all the database or the schema and these kind of things—they are not so bothered about that kind of technical details. So that’s where I have to step in and also understand the problem. And then if I’m able to help debug the problem with the developers, that’s good. But if not, I have to translate it back: what does the technical roadblock bring to the experience? For example, the users will not be able to see all their data in one page. So I have to translate it back into what the designers can understand. And then probably the designers would think about how to circumvent this problem. Do we split the information into two pages? Or we disseminate the information to the users on a page by page basis?
On the coolest project he’s done.
MATTHEW
Yeah, it sounds like it’s pretty—you need both sides, it seems. Okay, so maybe you can share a bit about what was the coolest project that you’ve done here at STUCK so far?
BEN
I think I’ve done quite a few cool projects and stuff in my time in STUCK. So one of the projects that was pretty cool to me was actually one of the projects that I did last year for an FMCG company. So this design actually comprises of a screen and an interactive touchpoint. So the users will stand in front of the interactive touchpoint, and then interact with it, and then the screen will change. And after he selects everything, a sample will be dispensed to him. The company wishes to use this touchpoint to give out free samples to the users. So you can imagine this in the atrium of a shopping centre, so shoppers will actually just stand up in front of the interactive object, and then just select whichever samples that they want, and they will be able to get the samples.
MATTHEW
Oh, so it’s almost like a museum exhibit? That kind of interactive experience where, like you mentioned, you get a sample…
BEN
It’s an immersive experience. There’s sound, there’s lights, and there’s moving animations and stuff like that. So it’s actually quite a nice touchpoint for the users.
MATTHEW
That sounds really, really fun! But I imagine the backend would be pretty crazy.
BEN
So the whole project can actually be broken down into three main aspects. So there is the shell, and then there is the hardware selection, and then there is the software integration.
So for the hardware selection, we actually have a lot of moving parts in this touchpoint: there is the dispensing of those samples. So we have to find a way to actually store the samples and safely deliver it to the hands of the users. So there’s actually a lot of moving parts.
And then on the fabrication of the shell, because we chose quite an organic structure for the look of the touchpoint, we actually had to use 3D printing to print out this shell. It was quite an adventurous endeavour, because this 3D print is actually about one metre tall. Usually the 3D prints that we print in-house are only about a few centimetres to maybe 20 centimetres tall, but this print is actually one metre tall. So we had to get an external printer to print such a big shell.
MATTHEW
I see. The challenges being that it’s not stable, is it?
BEN
I think the main challenge is because the print is so big, which makes it so expensive. So we only want to print it once. So on the computer, we had to slice it very finely and go through with the whole team: where are the wires running? Is the hole big enough for the USB head to pass through? Sometimes because, for example, if we have a hole that is running across the wires, but you do not account for the head of the USB, we will not be able to thread the whole USB through.
MATTHEW
I see, so you guys chopped up this structure into different portions so that you guys can run through…
BEN
Like a mock setup of the whole design, yeah.
MATTHEW
Right. Even the assembly of it?
BEN
That’s right. To a certain extent, we went through the whole assembly of the whole structure, like where are the structural elements, where will all the hardware be residing in?
MATTHEW
Woah. Because you mentioned that the cost of this prototype is quite high, like you don’t want to mess up after you get it printed already, right. So you have to take every precaution you can to mitigate all these issues before you actually purchase the thing.
BEN
That’s right, that’s right. I think it’s through the act of overcoming all these obstacles, which made this project to be the coolest project that I’ve made so far.
MATTHEW
Right, and maybe you can share a bit about—take us into the challenges. And you mentioned three sections of this whole setup, like it consisted of the 3D printing, the hardware selection and software selection, maybe you can share a bit more about the 3D printing?
BEN
Okay, so the 3D printing, because it’s such a tall structure, we had to have the object to be quite rigid. In the end, we chose ABS. ABS was stable enough, the dimension is stable enough, and is able to print up to one metre tall. So we had to try different materials, types of printings and different companies to see which one matched our requirements.
MATTHEW
Right, ABS as opposed to PLA?
BEN
Yeah, so there’s different types of printing methods. But for the height, we had to use ABS. That is one of the more economical and dimensionally stable material.
So for the software side, we actually met with a lot of challenges as well. Because the device is actually communicating with a computer, there was a lot of protocol being handled by the two parties. So we had to use a lot of Bluetooth protocols and stuff like this, in order for the two computers to kind of communicate with each other.
MATTHEW
Because it is, you mentioned, is a video experience as well, and there’s this delivery. It’s not just, oh, after the user does an action, then it just plays a video, it’s not so simple?
BEN
Yeah, it’s not so simple. Depending on which samples that the user selects, so we have to play the according video. And then when the video ends, our sample has to be delivered at the same timing. So there was a lot of communications between the two devices.
MATTHEW
And how about the hardware selection?
BEN
So hardware selection, I think one of the biggest challenge was actually trying to get a very silent servo, because we have a lot of moving parts in this prototype. So we were trying to find the most silent servos to be using this prototype. We do not want to, because of the grinding sound of the servos, to hinder the whole experience for the users.
MATTHEW
Because for servos, the cheaper ones, are they more like [squeaky sounds]?
BEN
So we actually bought from the cheapest range to the most expensive range. But quite amazingly, it is the cheaper one which performed to our specs.
On computational thinking.
MATTHEW
Wow, that’s quite interesting. Okay. Thanks for sharing about that really cool project and the challenges that you faced.
Maybe we can move to this thing about computational thinking. I think we had this conversation, just casually, but what is computational thinking, and how can we understand it if I have never heard of this term?
BEN
So, computational thinking is actually a way of thinking.
Unlike design thinking, where it’s an iterative and prescriptive framework, computational thinking is more like a way of how you would view a problem.
There are four main pillars of computational thinking. There is decompositioning, where you break down a big hairy problem into smaller manageable parts. And then there is also abstraction. So from this problem, you abstract out what is the most critical aspect. And then there is also pattern recognition. So sometimes when you take the time to sit down and analyse the said problem, probably you can find some emerging patterns and you’ll be able to solve it in a more efficient way.
There’s actually one last part, which is actually the logical thinking behind computational thinking, which is to change all your solutions into kind of like instructions or a recipe so that other people are able to follow. Just like a recipe, a person who is not a baker will be able to follow step by step and recreate a cake.
MATTHEW
So that’s like the sequential part of the computational thinking? Could you just say again, what are the core things? Abstraction…
BEN
Decomposition, pattern recognition, and last but not least, is to change it into a series of steps that other people are able to follow.
MATTHEW
I see. I mean, I’ve heard of design thinking and you’re saying that design thinking is like not so—it’s just different from computational thinking. Can you just share how they are similar or different?
BEN
I think computational thinking and design thinking are actually the different sides of the same coin. Both of them are trying to work towards an innovative solution.
It’s just that, like I mentioned previously, design thinking is more of an iterative and prescriptive framework where when you’re stuck, you know what to do next. And when you think that the solution doesn’t fit your criteria, you can go back to the starting point again and reiterate the whole process. Whereas computational thinking is more of—it’s like principles. So you can view certain problems from different aspects and try to tease out what is the best way to solve it.
Probably I can give an example to better illustrate what computational thinking is.
MATTHEW
Okay, yes.
BEN
There’s the numbers one to nine. So we’ll take turns to choose one digit. And then the person who is able to add up to 15 first will be the winner.
MATTHEW
Okay, challenge accepted!
BEN
Realise you’re stuck?
MATTHEW
Yeah.
BEN
So this game could seem like it’s quite complex. And the strategy behind it is not so clear cut. But let me rearrange this thing into another format. Then probably you’ll be able to better play this game. So let me rearrange these numbers again. It just so happens, all these numbers are able to add up into a thing called a magic square. So I’ll start by having all these numbers here.
So this is what I call a magic square. And then shall we play this game again?
MATTHEW
Okay, okay. I’m just gonna go with four.
BEN
I’ll go with five again.
MATTHEW
I’ll go with eight.
BEN
I’ll go three.
MATTHEW
Okay you took my three, so I’ve got to go with two.
BEN
I’ll take the last seven. And I got 15. So do you see something interesting about this arrangement and how we are playing it? It’s like tic-tac-toe. Do you feel like we are playing tic-tac-toe now?
MATTHEW
Oh, you connected three numbers together?
BEN
Yep. So yeah, by rearranging this series of numbers into a square, where each side of this adds up to 15, which is called a magic square. And then we have actually simplified our game into a tic-tac-toe. Through abstraction and decomposition of this rearrangement of this series of numbers, we’re able to draw problems into a simpler form, where all of us know the strategy of how to play this game.
MATTHEW
Woah, that is super mind-blowing. So are you saying that if I played this game with the mindset of tic-tac-toe, and not considering, okay, I need up to 15, and I try and play with that strategy, I will be able to win?
BEN
That’s right. Shall we play again? But this time with your new strategy in mind?
MATTHEW
Oh, yes please. I don’t like losing.
BEN
So I just placed the numbers here again. You can go first.
MATTHEW
Oh, so kind of you, sir. Okay, I’ll go with five this time.
BEN
Yeah, good one. I’ll go with nine.
MATTHEW
Normally, I would play with an eight, because that will be…
BEN
In order to block you, I’ll be choosing two.
MATTHEW
Oh, yeah. Okay, I see it. Oh no, then you’re going to hit four. So I should press four. Can I press four?
BEN
Okay. So this is where the analogy kind of breaks down. But as you can see, the first few steps we have taken are actually taken in the way of the strategy of tic-tac-toe. So it’s quite interesting that we are able to change this game into something that we are more familiar with. So that is kind of like a application of computational thinking—changing some complex problem, we funnel it down, we abstracted it, trying to see if there’s any patterns in it. And then we come up with a slightly different strategy to approach this problem.
On where we’re heading in the future, from the perspective of a creative technologist.
MATTHEW
Yes, I’m still in awe of this new strategy. I mean, I wish I could kind of use this tool to see problems in different ways. Maybe you can share more about that later. Where do you think we’ll be heading in the future? I mean, in your role as a creative technologist, where are we heading? Are we heading to more human kind of design or more computational kind of things?
BEN
So I think the world’s problems are getting increasingly more complex. So probably, we will need design thinking and computational thinking to go hand in hand, or arts and science to go hand in hand. Because if problems like climate change or societal behavioural change, all this cannot be only affected by just technology alone. Probably we’ll need some human factors to ease things out. So both of this have to go hand in hand in order to solve more complex problems.
MATTHEW
So in your opinion, the future is not just going to be so efficient, computational kind of thing, but it’s also not going to be so artistic, in a sense that there has to be some blend between both fields. Is that what you mean?
BEN
Yeah, that’s right. So like an interactive touchpoint without…
An art without the technology is just a stationary art. And technology without the arts could be very hard to use or not very intuitive to use. So it will not be used as well.
So therefore, I do see that there’s going to be a fusion between the arts and science, for all the different complex problems that we are facing in the near future.
THE STUCK IN DESIGN TEAM
Desiree Lim, Kevin Yeo, Matthew Wong