Week 3 Reading Response: Chapter 2
For this reading response, I want to discuss "Design Inside-Out" and "Function Follows Form" (Principles 2.2 and 2.3). After reading this chapter, I got the app Ocarina. I was very curious to see how well it actually worked as I have tried many musical instrument apps on my phone and none of them have been very good. I have tried guitar and piano apps and they seemed clunky and hard to work with. When downloading Ocarina, I was dubious. This idea presented in Principle 2.2, that you should try to “appropriate technology in unconventional ways” is a nice thought, but, unless the existing hardware is tweaked or new hardware is added on to suit the use case, these attempts often fall short.
When actually trying the Ocarina, I was pleasantly surprised. The instrument, though versatile and fun, was very basic. The app did a good job adjusting to the limits of the existing hardware. Unlike the piano keyboard or guitar strings app, there was enough room for my fingers to properly press each note with ease. While I was pretty terrible at playing it, I could see how someone could carry a tune with the 13 notes and 16 pitches available. Likewise, I could actually see what I was pressing thanks to the visual feedback . This also gave it a very hi-tech feel, ultimately distancing itself from the very traditional, ancient instrument that it is inspired by.
Blowing into the microphone and hearing a sound was very cool and definitely changed my perspective on things a bit. Previously, my only other positive experience with an app that appropriated iPhones functionality for a different use was the heart rate monitor. This app uses a combination of the camera and flashlight to accurately measure your heart rate (the pulse can be measured by the changes in amount of light hitting the camera). I also think the flashlight itself is a good example. Though it was originally made to be a flash for pictures, its use case as a flashlight is a viable one.
I think that the idea that one can revolutionize an existing product with an entirely new functionality is not an unrealistic one. In fact, I believe it is built into our very DNA. The design of the human being through evolution and Darwinism led to the body we have today. But as humans, we have far exceeded the basic functionality (survival and procreation) that our form (human body) has lent us. We don’t just use our eyes and hands to look out for danger or find food, we also use them to play Fortnite and play Lacrosse (at least me, anyway). These are not activities that help us survive and pass down our genes, but rather they are happenstance.
Likewise, in architecture, the functionality will often follow form. When I was a kid, my friends and I used to take one of those toy cars you drive in and we would slide down our neighbor's very steep and long driveway. This became a near daily activity (and something my neighbors and my parents often complained about). While the paved hill was clearly not designed for this purpose, its form lent an opportunity for a very fun function, something I enjoy and treasure to this day. As Churchill said, “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”