My definition of interaction involves human recreation aside from the common sense of interaction. For example, I wouldn’t see pushing the button to turn on/off the LED as interactive, however the form of the “button” would be, however the process of LED goes on/off (i.e. the output) may vary, as long as the users themself don’t have recreations using the output (for example re-align the leds to form some pictures that according to the user, has aethestic value), I would not identify it as interactive. I did not form this idea based on any in-course reading. It is merely how I feel after looking at many of the projects’ documentations provided online.
The two projects that triggered my thinking are click canvas by KIMBABSTUDIO (https://www.creativeapplications.net/member-submissions/click-canvas/) and Vivienne La – 21st Century Ghost (https://www.creativeapplications.net/maxmsp/sfpc-spring-2019-student-showcase/). The former one aligns with my definition because the users, by clicking on the buttons of the canvas, can creat certain picture(s) according to their will; and that, to me is user’s envolvement being high and the creativity appearing. However in the second project, as much as the aethestic value being high as a whole project, the intercative part of the supposedly “interactive” part of the project doesn’t align with my definition. in this project, when you put a certain number of sticks in a certain way in the vases, different imsges will be shown on the screen accordingly. This to me is simply like using a knife to cut a piece of wood, with the input-output process taking more coding rules that were implanted by human than phisics rules that were implanted by nature. An input, an output, everybody knows how the output would be on a single move like this if informed enough by the rules implanted. However, if the human using the knife startes making wood carving out of the wood, the process become interactive. Like wise, if, in the clicking canvas there were only one button which changes color according to the number is was clicked, it wouldn’t be considered as interactive by me either.
In our group project, the definition of interaction is rather different than my own. The definition based on which we decided to act, was that interaction doesn’t really need a visual output, as long as the input and the process are informative/educative/entertaining (not visual output), it is interaction. In this case we are focusing on the impact that whatever device creates on our brain, which is the reverse of the common sense of interaction which is human controlling matchines. So, our Knowledge Transmitter 2.0 which achieves the purpose of educating people directly with knowledge (input) so that people can learn (process) things that they have never done before (output: new things learned–educative). And our three scenes which are learning Chinese, learning to make grilled cheese and reading Harry Potter respectively aligns with our possible output: educative, informative and entertaining. The definition of our project, despite from having great difference from my own, does focus more on the users’ side more just as mine does. The former one emphasizes the impact on humans’ minds, while the latter aims at its function of creating, both of them requires high user envolvement and that’s probably why I would agree to using the groups’ definiiton.