4/21/22

Formal Annual Report

(1) - Categorization of Items

Inanimate objects (55)

Physical(37)

Digital(18)

  • Physical(37)'s identified objects:
     food, cars, notebook, paper boxes, clothing garments, plastic, animal dolls, paper-based illustrations

  • Digital(18)'s identified objects:
     smartphone screenshots, qr codes, numerical codes, maps, social media app screenshots, digital-based illustrations
Food Smartphone Screenshots Plastic Dolls
Percentage 20% 12% 8% 2%

Animate objects (45)

Non-humans(35)

Humans(10)

  • Non-humans(35)'s identified objects:
     fish, tree, dog, cat, goat, cricket, rabbit, hamster, monkey

  • Humans(10)'s identified objects:
     human hand, human torso, human jaw, human eye, human frontal face



Dog Fish Cat Human Hand
Percentage 34% 14% 9% 4%

(2) - Analysis & Insights

General behaviors
Both sent and recevied images were often of low image quality(~72dpi). Often the camera was out of focus, leaving the image to be blurry, and the alignment of spaces were uneven all throughout. The low image quality was inferred to be an indicator of the relationship status of the two individuals the image was being exchanged with: the lower the quality, the more comfortable the two individuals were with each other.

Oddities
However, there were some images that were high in resolution(300dpi). Images with higher resolution also tended to have even alignment in spacing and composition. While a low image quality was a strong indicator of people's sense of comfort with each other, there were few instances when this scenario wasn't completely true