Initial Definition
My understanding of the term âinteractionâ has seen a lot of change since participating in this interaction lab course. I had always had an idea of what the term conveyed in context but was not aware of the severely ambiguous nature the word carries in association to technology and the human race. In the definition I deduced during the group research project period, I explained that interaction was a form of collaboration coined for the direct involvement between two or more subjects, living or nonliving. I use Chris Crawfordâs argument and understanding in the âArt of Interactive Designâ to come to the understanding that interaction occurs through the presence of a force, one that stimulates a chain reaction. This leads to a constant cycle between the actors. According to Crawford, the cycle should be a process in which the subjects âalternatively listen, think and speakâ (8) with one another to create and introduce an input, processing and output complex. He clarifies that there is a distinct discrepancy between reactions and interaction, explaining that there must be at least two actors who react with one another to create this constant cycle of input and output (13). It is not considered interaction when only a single actor creates and processes data to produce output. Thanks to Crawford, I am able to understand that there are multiple layers as well as multiple variations of interactivity.
Project 1: Difference
The interactive project I have chosen that I believe does not fully align with my definition of interaction is the âClick Canvas, an Interactive Wall.â The goal of the project is for the user to âinteractâ with the canvas by pressing or clicking a bunch of buttons that light up with different colors via the LEDs found within them. The project is supposed to invigorate curiosity and creativity from the user, as the individual is able to do anything they want with the board: draw, write, color, anything. Although the canvas is very well thought out and designed, I believe that there is a lack of interactivity between the user and the board. The user goes up to the board and clicks a few buttons, therefore the user indeed interacts. However, the board only lights up depending on the userâs input, the only output it provides is the coloring of each LED section. This is not interaction, this is a reaction, as described by Crawford. The user already had in mind what they wanted to produce before going up to the board, so the lighting of the panel did not in any way, affect the user. It did not cause the user to continue processing its output and placing in the input. The user was going to continuously input their information and design no matter what. The board serves as a creative outlet to the user and incorporates larger aspects of reaction rather than interaction.
Link: https://www.hackster.io/natthakit-kim-kang/click-canvas-an-interactive-wall-04332c
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j5Cqc82Gag
Project 2: Similar
A project I believe conforms to my own definition of interactivity is Hannes Koch and Florian Ortkrassâ âRain Room.â The art installation allows visitors to walk through a downpour with the illusion of walking through rain without getting soaked. The projectâs many motion sensors that are attached to the ceiling detect the userâs movement and location as they walk through the room. Once a movement has been detected, the sensors signal separate water nozzles to stop the flow of water that invades a six-foot radius around the person. It has achieved worldwide acclaim for its intersection between art, technology, and nature at the heart of interaction. The input the user is implementing is their very own movement, with each step, the project senses and processes information for it to create an output. The output of the rain room, which is to ensure that the correct nozzles are turned off and on directly impact the individual, for it determines whether or not the user gets soaked while inside the room. This output tempts and encourages the user to continue walking or even run throughout the room as a way of interacting with the room.
Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkvazIZx-F0&list=PLUFYSjzJt4pSAkPLRojNrTt6ZOVkDmI2_&index=2
Ambiguous Nature
Within these two projects, I substantiate the reality that interaction is a very ambiguous term and extremely difficult to define in any circumstance. In relation, it is just as difficult to create something that is indeed âinteractive.â While I might find something interactive and creative, others might find it a misconception of interactivity. This reality is what pushes many individuals to conduct researches and create art installations and projects as a way of getting closer to the actual definition, if it is at all possible.
New Definition
After an entire semester of interaction-based projects, lectures, and assignments, I can say that my personal definition of the term âinteractionâ has come a long way compared to the past. Interaction in the form of art, is fairly distinguishable from traditional, generative art, as there is the presence of dialogue and collaboration between artwork and user. I still do believe that interaction, according to Crawford, must have two or more actors that subject to a constant cycle of input, processing and output, a cycle where all actors much work to stimulate input from the other. When creating the intended project, the designer must also keep in mind the difference between a reaction and interaction. As Crawford believes, a reaction cannot be considered interaction. If a branch falls onto the ground and causes the birds in its vicinity to flee the area, it can not be considered interaction. The branch is the only individual placing input into the situation, the birds are only reacting to the branch and not producing any output. Hence, there is no cycle that is being perpetuated. I have also learned that according to the interactive artist, Igoe, an artist should not have to explain their project/artwork to the user. The individual using the project/machine should be able to interpret what form of interaction is being exercised in the situation. This promotes the idea that in interaction, everything, should be user-centered. The interactive design must fulfill its usability goal, and strive to give the user a good experience, encouraging them to continue implementing input, which ultimately, stimulates output from the machine in what we call a cycle. I hope to reflect this definition of interaction in my upcoming final project.