My own definition of interaction
From my perspective, interaction means a constant process of input, data processing and output between two people or objects. Respectively, the input does not have to be the computer thing such as typing, mouse clicking or file uploading, the data does not need to be the tedious number, and the output does not have to be images illustrated by the screen or the sound by the speaker. Those could be more about abstract things like ideas, design, etc.
The Interaction Art Project
-The project which aligns with my definition of interaction
(picture 1 )
(picture 2)
(https://www.manamana.net/video/detail?id=1731529#!zh)
This was an art exhibition called “Zhu Meng Xing Hai”. It help people imagine themselves sometimes being a fish, and sometimes being a butterfly. It exhibited the image in an interactive way. In picture 1, the whole ground was a huge screen, and when the woman step on the screen, the butterflies would create a path way for the person walking. And in pic2, some of the butterflies were staying on the man’s shoulder, and the others were dancing around the man.
It definitely clarified my interpretation of Interaction. The action of a person step on the screen, or when they raise their arms beside the screen are actually what I called “input”. We input our action by the gravity we transmitted to the ground, and the sensor could identify it as the “input”. Next, the device would compute according to the program which provided by the inventor, and the moving image would be demonstrated on the screen. And this is how the device works.
We, as the users, input what we thought, and the device would “think” about what the users want to express, then it would “talk” to us, and in turn we are the listeners. And this is why I think the work “Zhu Meng Xing Hai” can be called “interaction”
(https://www.manamana.net/video/detail?id=1731529#!zh)
-The project which does not align with my definition of interaction
The picture above illustrated a 50-inch-long digital timepiece which is made up of 24 individual analog clocks. Artist Emanuelsson and Bischoff explained that “re-contextualizes time in a mix of old and new, analogue and digital”. I like this piece of art, but I think this device does not align with my definition of interaction. Even though it was produced by human, and it was us who had such a creative idea, I think this is a low-degree interactivity, or even a zero-degree interactivity. Inventors did the coding stuff, but this masterpiece does not include the “communication” part between the users and the device.
The users look at the clock, and we would appreciate the beauty and the profound historical meaning of the clock, but no one would express their thought to the clock no matter in a physical or a mental way. The clock demonstrates the current time, and that’s it. It is not what I define as interaction.
(https://hellocircuits.com/2017/11/09/clock-clock-by-human-since-1982/)