Reading 1: The Art of Interactive Design

This reading has clearly addressed the different or no levels of interaction with books, movies, performance and between people, whom the author called actors. I was missing the consideration of video and computer games though, which I think is also very important because of just how many people enjoy them so much that they end up “interacting” more with their computer than their friends and family. Computer games do often have the illusion of being more interactive than they really are. Players identify with the characters in the games, often feeling the sense of adventure, danger or delight consequential to the characters’ actions in their own skin, especially when the screen is large and thus acts like an alternate reality. The same things can happen with movies. My friend identifies with certain characters of Game of Thrones so much that they seem to feel the strong emotions (grief, anger especially, or joy) of their favourite characters. Computer games, tv-shows or movies create an illusion of interactivity between the players/spectators and their own components that may not actually be there, yet many people believe they are and thus begin to devote more time to their favourite fabricated environments than their real ones. For instance, my aunt and her husband once took a sick day off from work to stay at home and watch the new season of The Last Kingdom.

To us, it does not matter how interactive these things actually are. No one really thinks about this in their leisure time. But the fact that they mimic interactivity so well places them in an interesting position in this chapter’s debate.

However, while missing work to watch TV might just sound bad, oftentimes non-interactive things like movies, tv-shows and books initiate the deepest interaction between two or more people, which can increase our sense of connectedness.

Reading 2: The Design of Everyday Things

This phrase from page 22 has stuck with me the most: “Machines that give too much feedback are like back seat drivers.” It is interesting to look at this simile because even though machines are not as interactive as we might like them to be, we still think of them as at least partially “alive”. Consider my friends giving names to their cars, or me naming my GPS once after an annoying, stupid TV commercial to associate it with well, being stupid. Even though we as a society deny being too dependent on technological devices, I think the reality is that we do want these devices to be part of our lives more efficiently. To some people, human interactions might seem to be too much effort compared to an AI that will tell you anything you want to hear and in any fashion you want to hear it. I think the fundamental principles of interaction such as affordances and conceptual models are all very important parts of making usable, enjoyable and perhaps very smart designs, but design aspects such as signifiers or mapping also allow the designer to not make these devices too interactive. For commercial designs, I think it is important to reinforce the idea that it is “just a machine”. The really good design aspects the author mentions would be better reserved to create bridges between us and those members of our society who have natural limitations of interacting with other people, instead of isolating those of us who would otherwise be persuaded to interact with others.