The Physical and the Virtual

The Microteaching task we have completed had the remit of being based around an object, with a physical item intended rather than merely a representation of it (such as an image). That is precisely what each of us did in the group that I was a part of. One thing I came away with after the session was the contrast between having a physical object that you can interact with (view from differing angles, touch, see reflection, etc.) and a virtual representation of, perhaps, the same object. The last four years I have been teaching on the Pre-sessional English courses entirely online, and the students have a brief to respond creatively to a theme. Some students do create physical objects, such as sculptures or fashion items, whilst others work within the digital realm to create images, animations or soundscapes. But regardless of what they produce, in an online medium it is shared as a digital artifact, generally a photo in the case of the former.

One Microteach introduced us to Polycam (https://poly.cam/) which offers photogrammetry, allowing the user to photograph a physical object and capture a 3D representation that can be explored and exported. Whilst there is nothing so good as having the genuine object before you, sometimes this is not within reach or is possible for only a finite time. Such a tool as this allows for unlimited time to study an accurate representation of something, and share that same ability with others. Another Microteach had us examining a couple of objects, including a bizarre shaped block produced by 3D printing. So we took a physical object and made it digital, and then saw the result of a digital object made physical.

We also helped put together a model theatre stage, and it got me thinking of the advantages of using a physical scale model to aid planning a theatre production, rather than a digital rendering on a CAD package. The latter is possible with general software such as Autocad and Autodesk, as well as software especially made for stage design, with either category catering for lighting and other requirements. Constructing a physical model would be more expensive and time consuming, and therefore is perhaps prohibitive, but I feel may reveal aspects that may be missed on a screen rendition.

This led me to reflect on my own process of designing aluminium panels for electronics projects: how positive the UX will be for the finished product is difficult to tell from the screen, despite the software allowing an interactive ‘3D’ view. I often choose to print the panel to paper at 1:1 scale and check it carefully, perhaps laying control knobs and other components on the printout, prior to sending the file to be fabricated.

Two of the Microteaches looked at sewing, and they contrasted one other well. Along with examining the exquisite details of Ghanaian fans, we looked at a sample of the multitudes of stitch patterns, and observed differences between those done by hand and those by machine.

Whether intentional or not, my colleagues’ contributions seem to have something to say regarding the physical world over the virtual. I look forward to this year’s Pre-sessional in which we will be face-to-face again, and the opportunities that offers the students’ creativity.

543 words