Project of Interaction

Example:

Sharing Faces, done by Kyle McDonald, supported by Japanese and Korean art techs, collects photos of numerous people and analyses their facial expression, height and so on. And it designs a mirror-like screen, in front of which the user stands, and another person’s portrait appears on the screen. The other person that’s one from the photo collection will be about the same expression, height and gesture, so when the user moves in front of the screen, he will see in the mirror someone else imitating him.

Sharing Faces – Seeing yourself reflected in the image of others

Counter Example:

WiFi Impressionist, done by Richard Vijgen, is a field installation that listens for WiFi signals, builds a three dimensional model of them and draw the model on its plotter.

WiFi Impressionist – City as an electromagnetic landscape

Def. Interaction

Interaction is the iterative progression of the action and reaction between two units.

In “The Art of Interactive Design” from week 1, interaction is defined as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak”, and academically, “we could replace listen, think, and speak with input, process, and output” (5). Each move is a cycle, both as a reaction to the action the partner has done and as an action to which the pertner is going to react.

My definition explicitly contains the idea above. Since “iterative” implicates a chain where the last move is the base for the move now, and now is the base for the next. I also emphasize it’s action and reaction both sides, because each move should feedback the partner to make it certain changes.

Instancy Is Important

Sharing Faces the project is interactive. It’s easy to understand the progression that the mirror optically catches the player’s appearance and matches a similar other person’s photograph onto the screen is a cycle of action and reaction. It’s a bit abstract that the progression of the player is also a cycle of action and reaction, but indeed, humans can rarely resist the temptation to react to what they see, and then, the player’s changes in expression and gesture will again be captured by the mirror. So it’s an interaction between the device and the player.

This consecutive changes of both sides suggest one characteristic of a good interaction, instancy of the device’s move. It’s instancy that makes a device seem not dumb. Unless the process is nearly instant, the interaction is likely to break up since human reaction is on a whim, and before one the device is able to react, the player has lost the impulse to reflect what’s in the mind. Another reason why instancy is that the device may not exclusively get input from the player, as we read in “Intro to Physical Computing” from week 2, because an interaction artwork gets input via multiple sensors, and if the player’s move can be sensed, chances that exogenous changes are sensed should not be positively none. So the more instant, the less likely to be disturbed by irrelevant variables.

Two-directional Is a Must

WiFi Impressionist the project isn’t interactive since it turns WiFi signal input into the movement of plotting pen, but it doesn’t feedback the actor WiFi. It’s a one-directional process just receiving from WiFi, thus it’s not an interaction.

Who Should Be Interacted with: Not Human? Then Have Autonomy!

Our group project was Doglar, an intelligent multifunctional dog collar. One suggestion from a professor that struck my group members was that the collar shouldn’t depend too much on smart phones. One reason was that it would be otherwise limiting the ways of input within keyboards and screens, fingers and eyes. Another was that the actors should basically be the dog and the device, not the owner and the device, and it’s the dog’s conditions that get sensed and make the device pet the dog with autonomy.

One point of my contribution to the project was the size adjustment funtion. It senses size of the dog by stretch sensor and automatically roll the collar on a servo and fix at the optimal radius with a buckle structure.

Works Cited

“The Art of Interactive Design”, p5. http://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/ima-wp/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/08/05164121/The-Art-of-Interactive-Design-brief.pdf

“Intro to Physical Computing”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uviCK0V71cQpA76PV9PK03Df14vcsd0y/view

Inspired by the definition of interaction given by Crawford (“a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak” (1) ), I define interaction as a kind of conversation where two or more actors are involved. They listen (receive the information), think (process the information) and speak (give out the processed information).

The first project is two computers play rock paper scissor together. This project reshaped my definition of interaction in terms of the “actors”.  At first, I thought interaction must involve at least one human. but in this example, there is no human involvement, only two computers. But this project doesn’t align with my definition of interaction because there is no “thinking” process between the two devices: they give out the rock paper scissor gestures simultaneously. Each computer runs its own random algorithm, choosing one of the three possible items. The two results are random every time, no cyclic process within. To be more interactive, the two computers can analyze the results and choose the item based on the prediction of the other computer.

Another project is the intelligent personal home assistant called “Lauren”. According to the project description, “Lauren will remotely watch over the participants . Participants will be able to direct her via voice command, she can anticipate their needs and learn to accommodate their desires. She will control their home remotely using the installed networked devices.” This project better aligns with my definition of interaction. It “listens” (to the voice command), “thinks” (anticipate the owner’s needs and accommodate their desire) and “speaks” (give out actions).

Our group project aims to address some problems in daily life, the starting point is that many of us who have pets find it difficult to deal with them when the owner is on vacation. Much like the project “Lauren” in our research, this project is a pet assistant installed with cameras and sensors. It’s a wearable device wear by the dog and controlled by the owner’s phone. Inspired by the first project, the rock paper scissors, we decided to design a project not used by human. This device has the ability to “listen”, “think” and “speak”.

The “listen” process: there are multiple sensors on the dog’s collar to receive the dog’s barking and the blood pressure. The “thinking” process: it can analyze the frequency of the sound and the pressure of the blood and tell whether the dog is hungry. The “speaking process”: after the analyzing, it gives out food from the dispenser if the dog is hungry. When the owner is on vacation, he/she can view the dog’s actions by the camera on the collar and make some command on their phone to the connected collar. For example, if the dog urinate in the wrong place, the dispenser will not give it treats, vice versa.

this is our poster:

this is our prototype of the dispenser

references:

The Art of Interactive Design, Crawford 

https://www.creativeapplications.net/webapp/lauren-smart-human-home-intelligence/

https://www.creativeapplications.net/processing/rock-paper-scissors-virtual-ring-where-two-computers-endlessly-battle-algorithms/

My own definition of interaction is an iterative conversation between two or more actors and can be broken down into input, process and output. In addition, interaction varies in levels, which are dependent on the qualities of each stage (input, processing and output). A high level of interaction between human and machine happens as though the machine is an extension of human body and allows for more functions or expressions that are unable to achieve through physical human body. 

I came up with that definition based on my and my group’s research and the readings assigned in class. One of the two projects we researched when shaping definition is one interactive media installation called Firewall created by Mike Allison. 

This project is engaging and impressive. The visual effects and corresponding change as the user touches the membrane at different depths and with different gestures. I was deeply attracted by it and put myself in the user’s shoe imagining myself playing magic or being a creative artist. Another project I researched is an interactive wall consisting of many buttons which can generate various colors as the user click them.   It didn’t impress me that much as the first one. 

The difference of my impression on the two projects triggers my understanding of what interaction means. Specifically, as I think through the nature of interaction, the firewall contains many kinds of ways of input and output while the interactive button wall only has one way of input and output although the color produced differs. This relates to the concept “degree of interactivity (Crawford 6)” I’ve learned from Crawford’s article “The Art of Interactive Design,” which thinks of interactivity as a continuous variable. The first project has higher degree of interactivity as it gives the user more ways of input and generates corresponding output based on the certain kind of input. Therefore it adds more complexity and flexibility for the user to interact with. In contrast, the interactive button wall limits the way the user interact with it and gives only one single output, and therefore narrows the degree of interaction. I also gain inspiration from Igoe and O’sullivan’s article “Introduction to Physical Computing” in which they describe computer as “a medium for expression. (3)” Human-machine interaction design nowadays needs us to explore human body’s “full range of expression. (3)” The Firewall project is successful in achieving this. The membrane is extremely sensitive to the depths, speed, and gestures of the user’s hand so the user is allowed more possibility and freedom in moving his hands. Besides, the changing output, be it visual effects or music, gives immediate and unexpected feedback to the user so that the user is encouraged to create more inputs, which corresponds to one part of my definition of interaction— “iterative.” Both projects have input, process and output, but the button wall interaction is a one-time process and not iterative. It’s more of a reaction than an interaction and therefore doesn’t align with my definition of interactivity. 

After intensive discussion, our group came up with the definition: Interaction is a continuous conversation between two or more corresponding elements. In designing interactive device we paid particular attention to the “continuous conversation.” Our focus on it derives from the interactive wall project mentioned above, which we think by simply pushing button and generating color cannot be counted as a conversation. Instead, it’s a reaction and therefore is not continuous. Besides, the way of input is simple and boring and requires effort so the user may not be in interest it for long. So we want to create an interactive device that allows more flexibility in input and make the “conversation” ongoing. That’s how we came up with the idea of variable sensors that can take in analog input. And we imagine the input to be continuous variable and is changing from time to time. That’s how we get to the idea of body temperature. Taking into consideration the level of interaction we came up with the idea of automation. Our basic framework of body temperature and automation finally leads us to create a smart house where various sensors can sense the person’s body temperature and adjust the air temperature accordingly fully at automation. To allow for more application, we design those sensors to be not only in house like chairs, couch and bed but also be embedded in the house owner’s phone so that whenever the owner approaches home the phone sensor can send message in advance to the air conditioner (central controller) and the air temperature at home will be adjusted to optimal level before the owner arrives home. Since the body temperature of a person is always changing, so the conversation goes on and on. And the automation requires no effort of the person to initiate that conversation. In addition, various sensors enhances the practicability of the temperature control system. Furthermore, the sensors continuously sending messages to the air conditioner and the air conditioner generates corresponding temperature is also a kind of interaction. Taking all these factors into consideration, I think our interactive design fulfills the assigned criteria, particularly in terms of “continuous conversation.” Here’s a snapshot of our group’s collaboration work on google doc. 

Reference

1. http://aaron-sherwood.com/works/firewall/ 
2. https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/natthakit-kim-kang/click-canvas-an-interactive-wall-04332c?ref=tag&ref_id=interactive&offset=0
3. Introduction to Physical Computing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uviCK0V71cQpA76PV9PK03Df14vcsd0y/view
4. The Art of Interactive Design. http://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/ima-wp/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/08/05164121/The-Art-of-Interactive-Design-brief.pdf

I think interaction is a process that takes input from the outside world (human or nonhuman factors), processes the corresponding information, and finally outputs the response to the user. It also needs to have specific functions as an item to make life easier or entertain living beings.

As Chris Crawford says in the book The Art of Interactive Design, Chapter “What Exactly is Interactivity” that it defines “interaction” as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak” (Crawford 5). This is an interesting metaphor that compares the interaction device/technology to actual human beings. To accomplish this process, it requires the design of the interactive technology to be able to take “input,” “process” information, and “output” the response as Igoe and O’Sullivan defines similarly in “Introduction” of Introduction to Physical Computing that “interaction: input, output, and processing” (Igoe and O’Sullivan XX). Besides, according to Crawford, he “concerned with interactivity that has some blood in its veins” (Crawford 6). Therefore, I believe entertainment or utility is also significant to the design of interaction. Otherwise, it is of no use.

Based on the understanding of interaction, I researched two projects. The first one is “#WinningHalloween costume execution.” This project shows many fancy costumes to the audience at a little cost as a form of contemporary art. According to the main characteristics of “interaction:” “input, output, processing, and functional,” this project only fulfills the criteria of “output and functional.” It only gives information to the audience which is showing the fancy clothing to them and make them happy and feeling excited. Even though it is a successful art performance and is super creative that is so fascinating, and it still lacks the most important part of “interaction,” “input.” Therefore, I could not regard it as an interactive project but rather an art.

Another project I researched is “Artificial Arcadia – Measured and adjustable landscapes.” Based on the changing geographic factor, real climate change data, and human’s moving routine while experiencing the project, the white ceiling automatically moves up and down, showing the relationship between humans and nature. This is a successful example of “interaction.” It takes input from both human and nonhuman. After processing the information, the ceiling moves as a response to give output to the audience. More importantly, this is quite interesting for humans to experience, and it arouses humans to concern about our relationship with nature and cares about climate change. Therefore, it entertains humans and has social functions.

For our group’s project “Doglar” – a device that fully takes care of the dog for the dog owner – I think we successfully applied the definition of “interaction” to our design. We want it to receive information from human and nonhuman, then after processing, gives output that is significant or entertaining. We think it is a problem that many dog owners are having trouble taking care of their dogs and balance it with their own lives. If we can design an interactive device to assist them, it must be significant, hopefully entertaining. We design the device to take input from the dog. However, at first, we output most of the responses to the owner, though phone applications, to ask the owner to take further actions. We then realized that phones are not the best output because it requires another interactive device, which means we can make it smarter. So, we redesigned most of our functions to output to the dog directly. For instance, when the device detects that the dog is hungry, instead of only notify the owner on his/her phone, the food dispenser will automatically open. By this optimization, we believe that the “doglar” is more interactive and smarter.

Works Cited

Crawford, “What Exactly is Interactivity,” The Art of Interactive Design,  pp. 1-5.

Igoe and O’Sullivan, “Introduction,” Introduction to Physical Computing.

Interaction circulates around our daily lives in so many ways. It may have various definition. In my own definition, interaction is how machines collaborate with human beings in order to accomplish a goal. The collaboration process may require listening, thinking, and speaking processes. So many projects out there that require interaction. Some might contain more interaction process. Others might not include so much.

One project that I have found that clearly aligns with my definition of interaction is “The Evil Eye-Optical audio record by Indianen”. The artist of this project builds the project mainly to “investigate how printmaking could produce another kind of information, transforming material into an object with a new meaning” (Visnjic, 1). The project asks you to put an audio record on the record player, then it would pass through a device that has a light sensor. The next step would transform this audio into an electric signal by the device. This project is one of the many projects that includes interaction throughout the processes.

 Like I have mentioned earlier, there are some projects might have a different definition for interaction than I do. For example, “Anti AI AI-NN wearable for recognizing synthetic voice” is a project that has a different definition for interaction. The Anti AI AI is a project that is designed to recognize the synthetic voice of the wearer’s environment. According to the article by Filip Visnjic, the artists of this project say that “We wanted the device to give the wearer a unique sensation that matched what they were experience when a synthetic voice is detected” (4). From my understanding, the wearer simply has to put on the device, then the device would do all the detection processes for the wearer. In that sense, I do not see much interaction that requires listening, speaking, and thinking processes in this project.

Last but not least, in our project—Magical Mirror—we intended to communicate a sense of interaction throughout this project. As a group, we do think that interaction requires communication and collaborations between the device and the human being who is actually using it. We did not the device simply does all the work for the experiencer. In addition to the sense of interaction, we also wanted to include a bigger meaning for the existence of this device. We did not want to only solve the issues of choosing what to wear for certain occurances. But we also want to solve a serious environmental crisis behind this not knowing what to wear issue. We have made the device interactive by giving the experiencer the opportunity to talk with the device. The experiencer also has the right to reject any suggestions from the device. So it is not like that the project can determine anything for the experiencer. It is just limiting options for the experiencer. In the sense of solving a serious environmental crisis, we intended to make all the clothes that are in mirror’s considererations to be sustainable. The clothes are either made from recyclable materials or they have been over-used with professional cleaning processes. With these two core values in mind, we have come up with this “Magical Mirror” idea.