The throbber:
Overall, a very good and advanced throbber. You have made a throbber which varies from what we normally define as one with your implementation of 'fun'. This changes the role of the user as passive and unable to interact with the system (to some extent) to suddenly being able to do so.
If you prefer this kind of throbber or the classic is of course a matter of taste, but it is good to see that you have challenged the idea of a throbber.
It could be discussed whether the target group of your throbber is a bit small, considering the fact that some users might find it too 'childish' or less serious (cf. Technology, Logistics and Logic : Rethinking the Problem of Fun in Software, Goffey).
Your description and reflections:
You have made a very comprehensive description of your work. Great! Your reflections about programming and digital culture is also good and well argued.
The throbber: Overall, a very good and advanced throbber. You have made a throbber which varies from what we normally define as one with your implementation of 'fun'. This changes the role of the user as passive and unable to interact with the system (to some extent) to suddenly being able to do so. If you prefer this kind of throbber or the classic is of course a matter of taste, but it is good to see that you have challenged the idea of a throbber. It could be discussed whether the target group of your throbber is a bit small, considering the fact that some users might find it too 'childish' or less serious (cf. Technology, Logistics and Logic : Rethinking the Problem of Fun in Software, Goffey).
Your description and reflections: You have made a very comprehensive description of your work. Great! Your reflections about programming and digital culture is also good and well argued.