My original definition of interaction could be defined by understanding the relation between two items, wherein one item gives a response to the other. Prior to the group project, my definition was relatively basic, where the only addition to it was that one of the actors must generate a response based on the input of the other actor. Originally, I did not consider much to how interaction should feel, how it should be designed, or how it can be evolved.
After completing my midterm project, I found that interaction should be something which occurs naturally and without much thought. Therefore, the ways in which we design interaction become incredibly important, especially when considering the development of technology and how we as humans choose to communicate with machines. My definition has also changed to include the idea that interaction should also flow back and forth between the actors involved.
One work which I would like to bring to light is Memo Akten’s We Are All Connected (WIP). While this is still a work in progress, there are videos of demos on his website (link here), and one can get the sense of how this project is meant to work. By observation, it looks like there are two methods of interaction here: sound and hand movements. The screen contains graphics created by particle generation and movement, and there is a sensor to read the motion of your hands. All demos are paired with music, in which case it appears that the particles move along to the rhythm. Without watching closely, it seemed as if this project was not interactive, as it appeared as if things were moving randomly across the screen. However, after looking closely, much of the interaction here is very implicit. A sound sample is given (though it is unclear whether or not the particles are reacting to the sound or are just programmed to match), but through the sensor and hand movement, people who are viewing the art can push the particles around using their hand. The interaction with this piece appears to be very natural, as one simply needs to move things with their hands or arms, and it appears similar to how we might move our hands while underwater. I choose to consider this project interactive as it is inviting to the viewer and one may easily figure out how to interact with it.
While doing research, I came across this project done by a Russian designer for the 2012 Architecture Biennale in Venice, named “i – city”. At the Russian pavilion in this biennale, designers Sergei Tchoban and Sergei Kuznetsov worked together to create an exhibition where the walls of the pavilion where covered in screens displaying QR codes of varying brightness. Before entering the display, people where handed a tablet which would be used to scan the QR codes which were lit up. Once scanned, the tablet would display information about a new city being built next to Moscow.
(photos courtesy of designboom, 2012)
To some, this project may be considered interactive as the viewers are required to bring in a device and scan a QR code. However, in my idea of interaction, the response given after the action must be more tailored to the action. I feel that the simple action of scanning a QR code could be considered interactive on a very basic level, but it lacks appeal to those who choose to interact with it. Visually, the project is well done and it is inviting to me in that sense, but after the QR code is scanned, the interaction ends and you are simply left to read a screen. Good interaction should take the form of an ongoing conversation between actors, and it should not unnaturally come to an end. Moreover, the medium for interaction is odd. It’s an effective way of getting people to read information, but it is not a way in which we would typically interact with something, and so to me it feels stagnant.
After reading A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design, I feel that things which are interactive must also utilize different mediums of interaction and be more tailored to the things which use them. While scanning something may be a great interaction between two pieces of technologies, humans are not naturally made to “scan” things. Therefore, when redefining how I think about interaction, I feel that interaction should be natural. I tend to consider interaction as a conversation, but the way in which one actor converses with another is crucial in defining interaction. Conversations tend to natural and mindless. Therefore, in interaction, the way in which one thing interacts with another should feel natural and inviting. However, I do feel that there is something creative in purposefully making interaction unnatural. Aside from this, I would like to echo the idea that interaction should be a natural conversation between two or more actors. After one actor makes an action, the other should reply. There should be no loose ends and the conversation between the actors should flow smoothly. In my definition, I would also include Crawford’s ideas of the levels of interaction, and I would say that there are tiers of complexity within types of interaction, but most importantly, interaction should be something which feels natural. Interaction is something which can occur between humans, between humans and machines, between animals, and between machines.
Sources Referred To
Art Goes Interactive – Brian Nadel (2013, ComputerWorld)
A Brief Rant on The Future of Interaction Design – Bret Victor
The Art of Interactive Design – Chris Crawford