Through exploring the term interaction this semester, my perception of interaction has evolved. I initially saw interaction as two subjects conversing with one another. During the group project, however, I perceived interaction as being “at least two actors expressing variable outputs that engage with one another and those outputs are interdependent on each other”. Although I still perceive interaction to be that, I also now see that there can be different levels and quality of interaction. Through the completion of the midterm, the main addition I was able to add to my original definition is that in interaction, the more parts there is for a user to interact with, the more complex the definition of interaction becomes. For instance from user testing, I was able to learn that if the piece considers its users’ different senses and creates different interactions based on the human senses, the level of interaction is elevated.
‘Ghost’ installation traps visitors in an interactive snow storm
Ghost Installation: In this installation, this project lines up with my definition of interaction because there are many parts working together continuously in a cycle. The exhibition is created through the interaction that visitors have in the exhibit. Each visitor that enters the exhibit can see the remnants of its previous visitors. As the visitor interacts with the piece, the piece will output different variables from the intensity of the sound to altering the visuals. When no interaction is detected, the screen displays a landscape that features “the captured ghosts within” also known as its previous visitors. Each visitor has a different experience with the piece because not only are there many parts but also because they visually see different things. In addition, because the piece takes into consideration its users different senses and incorporates it into developing an interactive work, its level of interaction is elevated.
Vanishing Shades: This project created by Lara Defayes does not line up with my definition of interaction because the exchange is too simple. The project is made up of six iPads layered on top of one another in a customized shelf. As the user touches the top iPad the color dissipates to the last iPad. The exchange between the user and the iPad is not complex enough. Although the pads changing color is dependent on the user, the user gains nothing from the iPad and there is no continual exchange between them. After a user pressed the top iPad, the rest of the other iPads are primarily dependant on one another to light up, the user is no longer needed. To me, interaction is essentially a conversation and in this project, the user and the iPad are not conversing with one another.
Interaction is a cyclic process that can be broken which incorporates at least two actors expressing variable outputs that engage with one another and those outputs are interdependent with each other. The key word in this definition is “engage”, an engagement is a conversation, it is not merely a situation of cause and effect, it goes beyond that. There are different levels of engagement, similarly to how there are different levels of interaction. The quality of interaction is dependant on many variables one of them is if the user’s different senses are incorporated within the work. Crawford agrees in his discussion of the importance in different levels of interactivity. He notes, “we might speak of interactivity as high, moderate, low, or even zero, thus solving our problem with the subjective nature of interactivity”(6). Anyone can argue that anything can be interactive, but the quality and level of interaction is a big part of what interaction essentially is.