Redefining the Design Boundaries of Origami Physicalizations

After a conversation with a physicalization designer last week about my work, I have been concentrating on redefining the design boundaries of the space in which I am working. The designer pointed out that while the concept of origami for data representation is an interesting one, it is a wider space than I am currently exploring. He suggested a number of different angles from which I could approach categorising the different aspects of the space. I have taken these as a starting point to begin defining each strand of the design space which are open to exploration.

1 Mechanical

  • Explore the techniques of changing the shape of paper
  • Explore materials for creating designs (e.g. paper shape, size,
  • Defines boundaries of origami design space (e.g. pureland origami, modular origami, etc.)

2 Static

  • Map static origami designs against visualizations (viz)
  • Explore paper physicalization (phys) designs without direct mapping

3 Dynamic

  • Map dynamic origami designs against viz
  • Explore dynamic phys without direct mapping

4 Automatic

  • Technologically-enhanced dynamic phys with viz mapping
  • Technologically-enhanced dynamic phys without viz mapping

Each of the above offers a route to a novel contribution in itself. Alongside each lies the possibility of developing a series of guidelines for developing origami physicalizations for each context (i.e. static, dynamic, etc.) The next steps to move the project along will be to define its scope. While all the mentioned contributions within the design space are interesting, they may prove to be too time consuming to complete in totality. This, of course, will need to be explored before any decisions on the scope are made.

6 months ago

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *