Reading 1: The Art of interactive Design (Chris Crawford)

First of all, Crawford’s first chapter of his book “The Art of Interactive Design” was a pure pleasure to read. His use of first person narrative clearly indicated that the content was his subjective opinion and the format allowed a more humorous and engaging approach. Crawford’s argument was strengthened through his use of “bad” examples of objects that over and misuse the word “interactive”. He poses the issue and the necessity to define the word “interactive”. I deeply related to his thought progression on definitions of terms, especially those that encompass a broad spectrum of things. I have had previous experiences in art classes where the teacher asked the students to define art. There was no clear conclusion made from the discussion but the process of conversing about such a wide topic brought about interesting themes that would have not been discussed otherwise. Hence, it isn’t the final definition that is significant, but rather the process of exploring the possible components that define a certain term. His use of conversation as the main human act of interaction was very interesting as it made me think that all “talk” is not interactive if two subjects are not both being attentive through speaking and listening. It made me think about the difference between the two terms “speak” and “respond” as the latter is one that plays a significant role in making a conversation interactive as it requires the person to listen first. It also made me think about the times I conversed with a person and was left not feeling connected. As such, I think an object being regarded as interactive is very similar to the people you feel connected with. Everyone has a subjective standard for whom they connect with just as the child found the Nintendo fridge interactive while the adult failed to do so. 

Reading 2: The Design of Everyday Things (Don Norman)

Reading Norman’s critique of poorly designed objects was an entertaining experience. The way in which he presented the argument was engaging through his use of conversations, diagrams, and pictures. I deeply resonated with his example with the doors as for one of my previous blog posts, I chose to write about the door that is situated in my residence building and the inefficiencies of it. It also made me think about all the doors that I have encountered in my life, from rotating doors, automatic doors, etc, leading to a thought of what factors made a door efficient. I some what agree with the human-centered design philosophy mentioned in the reading as the potential solution to such poor designs. However, I felt like the term “human” was a bit general as it does not fully specify the different demographics that must be considered when designing a product.