Submission 2



1. Background

A study done in 2013 examined people’s personalities and linked it to how they use social media and how the use of social media affects their personalities. The study suggested that extraverted and new experience seeking people are heavier users of social media when compared to introverted people or people with a less stable mental health (pg 45). However, it was also found that social media has a negative impact on people’s confidence and their mental stability. It was also found that less confident people and also those that have a weak mental stability tend to rely on social media to communicate because of anonymity (pg 44). These findings would suggest that people’s personalities are being affected by the use of social media in a negative manner and there is a cycle of people losing their confidence by using social media which then forces them to rely on the very thing that is affecting their confidence and personality.

There are a number theories and philosophies that suggest that technology is advancing in a particular way that is affecting humans as a species, the ‘Cyborg Manifesto’  suggests that humans are becoming more like the technology they are designing and creating, whilst the technology being created is becoming more like its creator. We are shedding our personalities into the technology we use which then makes us lose parts of our own personalities. A film called ‘The Matrix’ which is based on the comic book, suggests that we are currently in a simulation being controlled by the very technology and machines we created. The depth to this concept goes further, and is genuinely worrying because of the current level of advancement of technology today. Are we creating technology that could make this fiction become a reality one day or have we already created this technology and our lives and personalities are a mere simulation?

It is clear that a lot of people are addicted to technology and that technology affects our personality and almost has a personality of its own. Mentioned in Submission 1 (see HERE) the team wanted to address: Does technology affect our personalities? Do we have an online and offline personality? And does technology have its own personality?  The exhibition and report aimed to highlight the negative impact technology and social media is having on humans and everyone’s personality. It is almost like we are all becoming one and the same as we regress more and more into the online world and have less and less interactions with reality.

1.1 Group Name

The name for the exhibition was decided to be ‘Cyber to Real’ as the experience was showcasing how technology affects one’s personality when online, showing a contrast in people’s personality when they are behind their digital screens.

1.2 Group Members and Responsibilities


Adam Poustie

  • Sound Design
  • Filming and editing various videos (documented in personal work post)
  • Sound integration with Processing
  • Additional processing work
  • Setting up and organising the exhibition along with the team
  • Additional concept and Documentation



Claudio Clafrica

  • Sound Design
  • Social media vs Personality idea conceptualisation
  • In charge of booking of audio equipment
  • Setup of audio devices for the exhibition
  • Review of sound team’s work and summarisation.

Summary of Work


Tristan Karaman

  • Sound Design/Composition
  • Exhibition Setting up/organization
  • Idea conceptulization






Danfeng Yang

  • Visual design
  • Interactive design
  • Coding
  • Idea conceptualisation
  • Setting up and organising the exhibition along with the team
  • Additional concept and Documentation.



Yali Shao

  • Idea conceptualisation (onlline vs. offline persenallity)
  • The visual design of processing, poster and interface.
  • Coding (including 2 individual files and integration).
  • Figure out the logic of jumping interface.
  • Complete the iterations and debug for all projects.
  • Exhibition setting (the feedback board).
  • Interviewed the testers on exhibition.




Maoqi Sun

  • Graphic design of the interface    
  • Interactive design
  • Developing processing code
  • Provide the ideas and collecting relevant code for interface jump
  • Setting up and organising the exhibition along with the team



Yingyu Zhang

  • The visual design of processing, poster and pop-up ads
  • Coding (including 2 individual files and Integration)
  • Made a Unity test demo
  • Finalized 6 processing files and made a video showing its final effects
  • Idea conceptualization
  • Exhibition Setting
  • Recording of the interviews


Ollie Bonsall

  • Taking notes during meetings and present them effectively
  • Organising a plan from what was discussed in meetings
  • Presentation of work
  • Documenting submission one and two
  • Background research
  • Review everything for submission two to make it cohesive and understandable


Yuqing Li

  • Collecting and organising project ideas
  • Taking group meeting notes, communicating with course organizers
  • Presentation of work
  • Documenting submission one and two (focused on visual design)
  • Introductory video design
  • Exhibition interview recording and editing

2. Project Concept

2.1 Introduction

The idea from the beginning was to explore the ways in which biases imposed by modern technology influence the way we interact with ourselves and our peers and how our own personalities are formed in consequence. In the past, human dialogue was mostly reserved to face-to-face forms of communication, whereas present-day technology has outsourced this blueprint formula to allowing more varied forms of human interactions to arise between humans. Social media, for example, provides access to a digital world where there are near infinite amounts of people to potentially connect with, however, the quality of the interaction is degraded to text on a digital screen. This lack of wholesome communication potentially ironically distances people as the ‘human touch’ is taken out of the equation. This inherently shifts the dynamics within social interactions and therefore as a consequence, one’s own personality and how they interact with the world is shifted/formed into a new entity. It is clear that technology’s role in human operation has upgraded itself from an external ‘tool’ to an extension of ourselves. With a modern climate that is becoming increasingly synergized with the evolving digital world, our actions and ways of operation are dictated by the mechanism in which these digital tools operate. Thus exploring the idea of technological bias and how it evokes certain behaviour in humans which were previously non-existent.

2.2 Chosen Concept

With digital tools becoming more complex and advanced their roles upgrade themselves from mere tools to extensions of ourselves. In today’s world, most people are dependent on their phones/computers for communicating, organizing, retrieving information and their own personalities as a consequence are somewhat dictated by how these digital tools are programmed. With a world that is becoming increasingly tied in with digital technology, it’s important to examine whether this is either positive or negative for human progress. The contestant is placed in an isolated room with 6 computers each with its own task. Each task is describing how modern digital technology’s development is shifting the dynamics we have with personal and social interactions. We hope that as one comes out of the experience, they are forced to rethink about their own relationship with digital technology.

2.3 How Our Ideas Developed for Submission Two

From the concept of Submission 1, the team thought about designing a personality test (see HERE) with HTML5. However, the team found it impractical to define a compact, logic chain for the test. After following the course organizers’ advice, it was decided to make our work a vivid and rich personality “experience”, rather than a personality test.

We took inspirations from the concept behind the TV series “Black Mirror – The future of social media“. It was decided to show that certain characteristics of social media platforms make people behave in a different way online from in real life, and most of the time they are not aware of this fact.

At the beginning, the plan was to create an “anthropomorphized online world” in an object-oriented software environment (e.g. Unity). The style would be similar to that of the film “Wreck-It Ralph 2’’.

As the project developed, it was decided to create a choice-feedback experience, to maintain consistency in the outcomes. While using websites/social media (Facebook, Instagram, Youtube…), people do things that they never do in reality or react to certain things totally different from in reality because those platforms offer them the secrecy and opportunity to behave in that way. For example,  someone who never says rude words to others in life might leave quite a lot of negative comments to a YouTuber that he dislikes. Would people make the same reactions/choices after they see those events that have been only on the Internet actually happening in front of them? Therefore, the experience would entail: asking people to answer some questions or do something that they would think only happens online, and feed their choices/actions back to them in a real-life context. The goal was to let people question if they have an online and offline personality and if so, why is that?

3. Project Work – Before the Exhibition

3.1 Decided Topics

Six topics were chosen for showcasing the impact of social media:

  1. Personal information leakage through Facebook
  2. Biased/selective posts on Instagram
  3. Cyber violence on YouTube
  4. Pop-up ads
  5. Contact blocking on various platforms
  6. Service rating functions on social media softwares

3.2 Sound Team

3.2.1 Software

The sound team began by making drones and background sounds for the personality test as there was not anything concrete to create sound for. Most of the drone sounds were done using Pure Data and Max/MSP, where they were then mixed and mastered in Reaper and Ableton Live 9.

It was then decided that the experience would relate to the Myers-Briggs personality test where the sound team then developed specific soundscapes for personality traits.

As the project began to focus on specific questions about social media and these questions having positive and negative results the sound team decided to divide the work up and create the positive and negative sounds for these outcomes.

A summary of the Sound Teams work can be found HERE.

3.2.2 Issues when making the soundscapes

The main difficulty lay in knowing what direction the project would take as it was being developed. There was no unified style for the sounds from the start therefore, the sound team would have to create sounds when needed and in short amounts of time.

3.3 Visuals Team

3.3.1 Software

The entire visual design was completed using Processing 3 which is ‘a flexible software sketchbook and a language for learning how to code within the context of the visual arts’. It was chosen because of its ability to make interactive visual art. In addition to the basic commands, the visual and sound libraries were used.

3.3.2 Logic and Graphic Design Initial Interface

The whole project was made up of six individual tests and their corresponding feedback which were related to the topics mentioned in Section 3.1. Below is the overall look of the test interface.


The buttons on the right are designed to denote specific social media platforms.

Clicking any of them would allow the player to switch between tests.

Code: Test Design Ideas

Facebook Information Leakage (Maoqi)

The Facebook topic aims to test one’s attitude to privacy leakage through social media. The player is asked if they want to stop Facebook from sending their personal information to a 3rd party. They could choose “yes” or “no”, and a feedback video will be played corresponding to their choice. In the videos, water flows out of a tap, which represents information leakage. For people who select “yes”, they could see the tap being turned off eventually (Related sound design: A. Adam); otherwise, the water just keeps flowing (Related sound design: B. Tristan). The videos are created in Photoshop and Adobe After Effects

Instagram posts (Yali)

This test is concerned about the selective contents and feeds on Instagram. For many people, it is more like a platform for showing off the best (or even fake) side of their life rather than sharing true experiences and feelings. Therefore, the question is designed to let people choose whether they would prefer to post A. a photo in which they look energetic or B. a photo in which they look relaxed.

People who choose A would see the first feedback video, where the character has his body curled up in a world of lights and high buildings. With the flashing lights, the soul seems to be pulled away and the character seems to be inhaled by the black hole that represents the virtual world. The dark blue color suggests depressive feelings. This feedback represents people who force themselves to keep looking good on social media, but actually they feel empty inside.

People who choose B would see another video where a person lies comfortably on top of clouds and is slowly moved away from the black hole. Accompanied by sound, it gives a relaxing feeling.

Related sound design: Tristan

Related sound design: Adam

The elements of the video were drawn by Yali and the videos were edited with Premier.


Youtube Comments (Yingyu)

This test was designed concerning the impact of cyber violence. The players were asked to leave bad comments on Youtube to people they hate. The words were preset (collected from real Youtube channels). But by hitting the button, the player would actually see their own face covered by up-rolling bad comments, and at the same time they would hear insulting words from the speakers. The aim was to make players feel the pain of getting insulted in real life so they could imagine the similar impact of cyber violence.

Related sound design: Claudio (The voices of our team members blend in with electrical interferences which attack the audience)











Pop-up ads (Yali)

This patch tests people’s attitude towards online pop-up ads. Although pop-up ads is an annoying and long-term issue for almost everyone, and setting up a firewall or a plug-in to block them would be fairly easy, very few people would rather click to close the ads every single time than make some effort to solve the problem permanently. Therefore, this test suggests that “If you do not set up a firewall to block pop-up ads, this is what would happen.” The player would then see their own face being covered by floating advertisement windows. They can click on the ads to remove them or drag them to the edge of the screen, but both require a lot of effort. The team would like to see to what extent people could bear this.

Related sound design: Claudio

The goal was to play on the tradition of keygen music, 8 bit songs that hackers use in the installation software of pirate applications and, at the same time, incorporate all the icon sounds from different social media platforms. The sound design aims at overwhelming the audience with anxiety, making them feel to be in a race against the clock as they try to get rid of these annoying pop-up windows. The music grows in intensity as time passes, almost like a ticking bomb ready to explode.


Block People (Maoqi)

It is common for people to block others out of any reasons on social media platforms. This test aims to reveal the team’s thoughts on the abuse of this function. The player would be asked to hit a button to block people they do not want to interact with, but they will then see their own face get blurred in the feedback stage.

This patch also allows microphone input. The player can speak but his voice would be put through a very quick delay and added to the input before played back, so the output would be ambiguous and bizarre, which also represents getting “blocked”.

Code for visuals:

Code for sound:

Rate People (Yingyu)

Inspired by the currently popular softwares which offer people the chance to rate restaurants, hotels, and even people, this patch imitates a world where people are given scores by others. In the feedback stage, the camera is called again, and the player would see an outline of himself with a small circle following his motion. A continuously-changing score is also given next to the circle. The mechanism behind this is actually motion tracing, modified from Daniel Shiffman’s tutorial, but it simulates the circumstance as if the player is being rated by others constantly.

Related sound design: Claudio

The sound design opens with an Instagram filter sample, whose dramatic sound is often used in the Instagram stories to express surprise or shame towards other people; in doing so the audience immediately receives a warning, which will be mirrored later on by the voice of an announcer; a vocal sample from the airport scene of the Black Mirror episode called “Nosedive” from which the group took inspiration from. Start Screen Interfaces (Maoqi and Danfeng)

Upon splitting the six patches apart, the visual team designed individual start scenes for each topic.






Rating: Visual and Sound Integration

When the six individual projects were completed, the sound effects were added into the code including buttons and background music. The team then tried to figure out the logic behind the whole system where it was successfully completed using button and if statements.

The logic system was as follows: Click the button to start > answer questions and make choice > click the button to see feedback > click the button to finish the test.

Here are the compiled Processing Files:

And here is a screencast displaying the whole process:

3.3.3 Issues When Making the Visuals

The main issues with using Processing 3 were as follows;

  • Its speed – the language and software is very expensive for the CPU
  • Its diversity – it was found that the code (Java and JavaScript) were not easily transferable because of the design of processing itself.

3.4 Documentation and Installation Team

3.4.1 Exhibition Plan

The original plan was to have the exhibition in the isolation room, Alison House, G.11 where a floor plan was created. It was decided to be in this room because of its isolation from the outside, it would feel like a very personal experience.

3.4.2 Meetings and Communication Strategy

Examples of the meeting notes and how we communicate our ideas each week can be found in the Appendix (8.2).

4. Exhibition Planning

4.1 Marketing

4.1.1 Poster

The poster design displays the complexity of personality by piecing together photos of each member in the team with Photoshop. Blurry effects were applied to the right half of the picture to add a technological look and to reveal the exhibition theme “Cyber to Real”.

4.1.2 Facebook Event

A Facebook event was created for the day which was an open event and multiple people were invited to attend.

4.2 Researching Equipment and Testing

The original plan for the setup was to localise what became six patches into one, and run it all on one computer, with one screen and one mouse. An equipment list was decided whilst the event was still planned to be in the G.11 Isolation room in Alison House. Originally it was only planned to hire a microphone from the music store to record the sound from the user for some of the interactive processing features. The rest of the equipment listed below would have been supplied by people in the team:

  • 2 – 3 x Speaker – Genelec 8030A (Maybe a Bass Amp)
  • 2 – 3 x Speaker Stands
  • MOTU – UltraLite AVB – 6801
  • Display Screen with power cable
  • Extension Outlet
  • Alesis – IO Dock – 6157
  • ADJ – LED Par 64 UV Slimline Par can – 6512
  • Panasonic – AG-UX180 – Video Camera
  • 2 – 3 x XLR Cables
  • HDMI Cable
  • Charger for Tablet
  • Cable for the LED
  • Chair
  • Table
  • Duct Tape
  • Paper to cover the windows

Before setting up for the exhibition, various types of laptop and computer were tested where it became clear that running all the work in a single Processing 3 file was too expensive for the CPU. This which largely affected the smoothness of the experience, and certain code conflicted with one another. Whilst steps were taken to prevent this as much as possible, it was deemed still too slow to present. Therefore, it was decided to split the patches into six separate files and run them on six computers. See Section 3.2 for details. This, in addition to the change of venue, resulted in a new equipment list:

  • 4 x Speaker – Genelec 8030A (Maybe a Bass Amp)
  • 4 x Speaker Stands
  • 6 x Display Screen with power cables
  • 3 x Extension Outlet
  • Alesis – IO Dock – 6157
  • ADJ – LED Par 64 UV Slimline Par can – 6512
  • Panasonic – AG-UX180 – Video Camera
  • 4 x XLR Cables
  • 6 x HDMI Cable
  • 6 x Charger for Laptops
  • 6 x Laptops capable of running Processing 3 software
  • Cable for the LED
  • Chair
  • 3 x Table
  • Duct Tape
  • 3 x Web Cameras
  • 6 x Bluetooth Mouse

The highlights in red are to indicate what is different from the original plan in the Isolation Room at Alison House and what had to be added after testing.

After testing the patches on each computer and making sure everything worked effectively, work focused around making webcams work within the patches on different PCs. As each PC recognized the webcams in different ways, each code had to be rewritten in a different way to work with the webcam. The main issue came from the way processing accesses the webcam, and the way Macbooks call up there own built-in webcam by default – however, after a late night of work, the problem was solved.

The space itself had to be modified to fit the six screens and after some redesigning and shifting everything around to best present the experience, the whole setup was ready and working in time for the exhibition.

4.3 Physical Space Requirements

As mentioned the project location was changed from the isolation booth in Alison House to InSpace located in the Design Informatics building. This space was much larger and more open than the sound booth. This changed the dynamic of the experience in a number of ways, but mostly the requirements for space were as follows;

  • A section of the space needed to be cordoned off so the team could make the experience as private as possible.
  • It was advised that the volume be kept to a minimum as to not distract students/staff in the building.
  • Sound isolation would be needed in order to reduce interference with other teams.
  • Consider where other teams would be positioned.

4.4 Site Planning

InSpace was visited prior to the exhibition on the 28th of March where an employee from the building was met and general questions were asked about the space. What areas are available? Will other people be in the building during the event? What is accessible to the public?

It was found that a lecture was being conducted on the 4th of April which was inconvenient as this was the day scheduled for the team to set up for the exhibition which was conducted on the 5th of April. With that being said, this gave the team time to go visit the other exhibition which was conducted at St. Cecilia’s Hall on the 4th of April.

From the visits prior to the exhibition, the team managed to obtain two large wooden boards which would separate the exhibition from the rest of the room to increase the privacy of the experience. In the beginning, it was intended to use a large screen in the center of the space with a chair and a mouse.

5. Exhibition

5.1 Setup

The exhibition setup started on Wednesday the 3rd. There were 6 monitors and each of them was connected to a laptop. The audio outputs from the laptops went into one mixer and were played through loudspeakers 1 and 2. Speakers 3 and 4 are used for playing the background drone.


5.2 The Exhibition

The visitors were asked to leave their name and email address on a signing sheet where 27 people took part in the experience. After signing in they were invited to enter the space alone and were given brief instructions on what to do. The average time it took one person to play through the whole process was about 2-3 minutes, although a few people enjoyed it a lot and spent up to 5 minutes.

Each screen represented a different type of social media where the user would begin from the left and go right experiencing each showcase. It was interesting to see some of the visitors would not want to experience some of the screens because of what they were asking, for example, one of the screens states: “Click here if you would leave hateful comments on YouTube” which was left unclicked on a number of occasions.

After the visitor had done the experience they were asked for feedback on their thoughts about the experience and about how technology is affecting people’s personalities.

5.3 Feedback

A feedback board was provided for visitors to leave their thoughts on the piece. Amongst the feedback were some thoughts chronicled here.

  • Some felt the swivel chair was effective, as it gave them the feeling of being at a desk job and that they felt like they were ‘battling’ with all the computers in front of them. This idea of them being at odds with the technology was an interesting point in much of the feedback, and was heartening to hear as it gave them a personal stake in the exhibition.
  • Some of our participants didn’t answer the questions presented to them in the first two screens. While this could be seen as a failing of the setup – it is preferred to look at it as another aspect of how certain people interact with technology, and their reticence was an interesting facet of the exhibition which perhaps had not been considered before seeing it take place.

Other feedback focused on the volume levels and sound interference from other exhibits. Unfortunately this was a regrettable necessity of the space we were given to display our work – had our original space been available – this would not have been an issue. Due to the open nature of InSpace, as well as receiving a warning from staff about volume levels the night before, the team were unsure about pushing the volume levels too far.

A compiled video of some users’ feedback was taken on board when considering the successes and points of improvement of the exhibition:


5.4 Conclusion of the Exhibition

From the feedback, it was clear that several aspects of our work need to be pushed further:

  • The concept and goal of the project were not expressed very clearly at the beginning. Many players said they were not so sure about what to do with the first screens, but it became more straightforward and clear as they proceeded. The reason for this might be that the high-tech and futuristic look of the work clouded the ideas behind it. The ideas of the project were also multi-layered. Therefore, a proper introductory session for the exhibition would have been extremely useful.
  • Interactivity is limited. People supposed they could do more things with the style of design, but most of the interaction in the process is simply clicking and watching the response.
  • A few people mentioned that having six individual screens for the experience did not make much sense to them, and they would prefer to complete all the tests on one computer continuously. Unfortunately, as there is the software issue of Processing, we could not solve this problem at this stage.
  • All in all, the complexity of the experience could have overshadowed the main point the project was aiming for. However, the depth of complexity helped the experience by giving it an overwhelming element. There are some elements of the concept that can be addressed in future work.

6. Post Exhibition Work

6.1 Improvements

Based on the feedback we got at the exhibition, we aimed to improve the objective and interactivity of the project.

Firstly, an introductory video was made.


It collects several clips of videos from Youtube and serves as a vivid showcase for the ideas of this project. The team supposes that it would make the concept much more clear if this video had been played to people at the exhibition. But as this is only a collection of other people’s work, the team also gathered ideas from all members. See Section 7.3.

Secondly, two of the most controversial patches were improved in terms of interactivity and flexibility of choice.

One is the Instagram test, where the camera would be called now and the player would be asked to take a photo of themselves to post on Instagram. The mechanism is that when the button is hit, a screenshot would be taken and stored to the local folder. The team wants to explore how people would behave under such commands. Do they get nervous? Would they change their gestures or nurse their hair? Would they try to make themselves look better and how?


Here is the updated Processing file:

The other is the Youtube comment test. As many people questioned the interactivity of it because they did not want to leave nasty comments online, the team decided to change the wording of the question and to call keyboard input for the feedback stage to assure the players more freedom to speak on the Internet. The new test and feedback now look like this:

Players can choose to ignore bad comments about themselves, in which case nasty words will be displayed as before and the player cannot do anything. If they choose to fight back, they can type in their own words on the right-hand side to respond.

Here is the updated Processing file:

6.2 Emailing the Results to the Participants

During our presentation on April 5th emails and names from every attendee were taken. The intention was to create a short feedback video that concluded the experience and perhaps gave the user pause about the way they interact online.

7. Conclusions

7.1 Issues on the Exhibition Day

As mentioned, the Processing 3 files were too expensive for one CPU to handle. Therefore, one computer was used for each question resulting in six computers.

This had some advantages and disadvantages, the advantages were:

  • The processing script ran a lot more quickly and smoothly
  • Each screen was easy to reset as it could be done manually from outside the booth by each computer
  • If there was an issue with one of the scripts it could be solved without affecting the other screens

The disadvantages of having six computers were;

  • It meant that the team needed five more of everything than was originally planned
  • The computers would need multiple people to supervise them in case anything went wrong
  • Some of the processing scripts were still too much for the machines to handle after multiple hours therefore, breaks had to be introduced to give the machines time to cool down

Another problem that arose during the exhibition was that the sound got disturbed by other events going on in the space. Headphones could have been used for the audio outputs, however as the experience was created with a speaker setup in mind, it was perhaps too late to change to a headphone setup and maintain the style of presentation intended.

7.2 Future Work

7.2.1 Sound Team

If the project were to continue, expanding the catalogue of sounds, introducing different sonic palettes and perhaps more varied pieces would be the goal. The interactivity would be improved upon and the sound could evolve to match this – through programming sound developing – like the block voice patch being worked to be more effective, or through generally having a greater pool of sounds to pull from.

Perhaps having soundscapes that evolve as the user interacts with patches where sections build on top of one another or blend into one another could be looked at, to increase the interactive element.

Also perhaps referring back to the earlier work on different personalities being represented sonically could vary the sounds more, and create a more engaging piece.

7.2.2 Visuals Team

Processing is a powerful tool for visual design, but considering the difficulties we encountered in terms of running speed, it is worth considering HMTL5 as an alternative way to achieve the goals for this project. This would save the effort of splitting the tests into six patches, and the project work could be made into a more cohesive, smooth, questionnaire-style experience.

7.3 Individual Thoughts

In the final stages of the project, the group decided to film small interviews with each member based around the 4 questions in the video. This was a chance to reflect on the project and each gives a personal view on the process and presentation.

8. References

Ableton, 2019. Ableton. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 28 April 2019].

Adobe, 2019. Adobe After Effects. [Online]
Available at:!3085!10!78821331038041!78821404845654&ef_id=XMWO-AAAAI2xMzve:20190428120613:s
[Accessed 28 April 2019].

Adobe, 2019. Adobe Photoshop. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 27 April 2019].

Correa, T., 2013. Personality and Social Media Use. In: S. L. C. E. F. L. E. Li, ed. Organizations and Social Networks: Utilizing Social media to Engage Consumers. s.l.:IGI Global, pp. 41 – 61.

Cycling74, 2019. Max. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 27 April 2019].

Haraway, D., 1985. A Cyborg Manifesto. 1 ed. New York: The Socialist Review.

NERIS Analytics Limited, 2019. 16Personalities. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 26 April 2019].

Oracle, 2019. Java. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 28 April 2019].

Processing, 2019. Processing 3. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 28 April 2019].

Pure Data, 2019. Pure Data. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 24 April 2019].

Ralph Breaks the Internet. 2018. [Film] Directed by Rich Moore. United States: Walt Disney.

Reaper, 2019. Reaper. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 25 April 2019].

The Matrix. 1999. [Film] Directed by The Warchowskis. United States: Warner Bros..

Unity, 2019. Unity. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 25 April 2019].

8.2 Meeting Notes

For every meeting a shared Google sheets file was used to make notes for the meetings and have goals set for the next meeting, the meeting notes can be found HERE.