Originally, my definition of interaction was highly based on Crawford’s article suggesting that interaction is a conversation completed by no less than two actors, in which both of them respond to each other. A process can be called interaction only if it contains more than one actor, and the actions of the actors should not be simply reacting. Instead, it should be how these actors communicate and respond to each other. Actors communicate with each other in the language and principles making sense to either side, so that they can complete a task jointly.
However, after doing the midterm project, I find my original definition superficial, which simply focuses on the form and the basic rules for this process and did not think about what effect should this process have on human beings. In terms of my midterm project, since our musical instrument did not work well and the way of using was kind of confusing, I learned that a good interaction does not mean simply to let the device do some reactions according to people’s different movements. Instead, a good interaction should be a process to generate creation, not simply implementation. A good interactive musical instrument should be capable to let people create some beautiful melody on it, instead of merely showing people five standard musical notes. Tom Igoe’s article “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” can support my new definition for interaction. He mentioned that creators should let the audience experience more and stimulate the audience’s own senses and emotions. In other words, an interaction process should involve elements which can give the audience inspirations and should be informative, rather than simply having a form of conversation and responses among different actors.
Another evolution of my definition of interaction is that people should be at the center in the process of interaction, instead of inputting code and leaving everything to the computer. Only in this way can this “conversation” between people and computer have a profound impact on the human being. The two projects serving as the inspiration for my final projects are Le Vent Nous Portera, and OKO. The inspiration I got is that a creative interactive process can be generated by putting those existing things, such as forests and image in NASA’s databases, into a new setting, setting interesting links with other things, and asking the audience to use an unusual way to operate a usual object is important. The first interactive project, Le Vent Nous Portera aligns with my definition of interaction, in terms of those criteria I mentioned above. For this interactive installation, participants move in a magnificent virtual forest, in which they are illuminated by luminous flying creatures following their position. Therefore, people are the decisive element for what the scenery of the forest would be like, and the space for the audience to experience is huge, through which they can create a sense of aesthetic by themselves. It also reminded me that the magnet can be a useful tool that we did not think about before for creating an interactive device. However, the project called OKO did not align with my definition of interaction. This is a puzzle game app, reconstructing the pictures from the NASA databases. This interactive app does not align with my definition of interaction. The reason is that by finishing the puzzle, nothing special was created by this conversation between the computer and people.
After doing the midterm project and the research, my definition of interaction turns out that it is an informative conversation between several actors, in which human plays a central role. Inspirations, creations, and many other utilities can be generated, and the relationship between the actors should be clear.
References
The Art of Interactive Design, Crawford
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen, Tom Igoe