Preparatory Research:
Interaction:
Prior to the group projects, I viewed “interaction as “a process by which two actors can make decisions based upon what the other is doing or has done. Whether the actors are human, animal, or automated, as long as they are capable of acting, processing, and reacting, interaction is possible” (Murdoch, Group Project post). Although close to what I envision now, this definition lacks one crucial aspect. It measures interaction as Boolean: either interaction exists, or it does not. There is no scale of less interactive to more interactive. Low interaction may be something like the light in the refrigerator (although perhaps this counts more as a reaction than an interaction). In comparison, Wii tennis seems grossly more interactive than a refrigerator light, but the definition I provided does not account for that.
Researched Projects
For my first researched project, I selected one called “Points of Interest.” This project was put on display at the International Contemporary Art Fair for Independent Artists in January of 2019, and although it appears interactive, it does not very well fit my idea of interaction. This project invites viewers or other artists to take a small sticky note, write their favorite hotspot or location to visit, pin it to a map, and write the exact address on it. This allows people to come and see what other people have done and view a plethora of interesting location with readily available addresses. To me, it is interactive insofar as it invites people to physically do something and engage with the project. However, the project is not responding to any of the actions the viewer takes, nor is it outputting any information. One possible area of interaction is if the project invited multiple people to pin their hotspots at once and then converse with one another about said locations, but that would consist of interaction between people and not between the project and viewer/actor. Therefore, while I find this project genuinely interesting, it is not something I consider within my parameters of “interaction,”
The second project I found is titled “Chatty Coasters”. Chatty Coasters is a project that I find to align well with my definition of interaction because, when compared to the previous example, it clearly demonstrates the different levels of possible interaction. These coasters have been programmed to detect long lapses of silence in a conversation and ask interesting, sometimes provocative questions to stimulate the conversation. One may argue, again, that the interaction is occurring on the side of the people having the conversation, but once analyzed more closely this is not the only interaction occurring. The coaster inputs sound values, and as long as they remain high, does not activate. This means it actively either responds to silence or to the noise level by talking or staying quiet. I can become more interactive by hearing silence, or less interactive if the conversation continues on its way.
New Definition of Interaction:
Although Chatty Coasters is very interactive, it still does not achieve what I consider optimal interaction. Here I will draw from Horkbaek’s research on interaction. I agree that interaction must consist of a continuous transfer of information between two agents that may change according to sent and received information, but Hornbaek mentions something I find very interesting. Agents that communicate are especially interactive when they can not only exchange information but also adapt to the received information to better achieve a desired goal (4). Therefore, here is my new definition of interaction:
“A process in which two agents, whether they be human or other, send and receive information from one another. What each agent sends must be influenced by what it receives from the other agent. The level of interaction can be low or high based on the variation of sent and received information, as well as to what degree the information changes the other agent’s response.”
Works Cited
Hornbæk, Kasper. “What Is Interaction?” University of Copenhagen, 2017.
Madeeha, Jasper, Cecile, Adam and Sangeetha. “Chatty Coasters.” Arduino Project Hub, Feb 2015.
“Points of Interest.” Artrooms London, 2016.
Highly deep definition of interaction!
You should be taking Information Theory and Genetic Biology and reading Gödel, Escher, Bach.