As I have come to understand âinteractionâ over the past several weeks in this class, I would define the term as when two or more actors are engaged in something and there is some kind of result. What is challenging about this definition, but also accurate to the term itself, is that this would encompass a very broad understanding of what it means to interact, and thus leave an incredible amount of room for interpretation. What has been both an inspiration and an obstacle in my experimenting with interaction so far is that because the question of the term is so open ended, it requires me to pin point either a specific problem or an idea that I have already encountered.
Interaction, as it was discussed in Crawfordâs âThe Art of Interactive Designâ explained interaction in terms of the various actors that can be involved, as well as bringing into conversation the especially relevant component of creativity and design. To take this idea a step further, Igoe and OâSullivanâs âIntroduction to Physical Computingâ begins to help me to assign the terms we have learned in class a more concrete meaning in the world of interaction and design in combination with computers and other technical elements. In trying to single out specific resources that have solidified my understanding of interaction from the perspective of technologyâsomething with which in the past I have felt dangerously unfamiliarâthis explanation of not only the terminology like analog and digital, but also the in-depth descriptions of the tools that we use each day in class, has been particularly helpful. Additionally, Tom Igoeâs âMaking Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listenâ was another important read for me as it prepared me for approaching this project from the lens of an artistâs thinking about a performance, rather than a project with a presentation. This level of engagement with the work in this class, and interactive artworks as a whole, is something that has both surprised me and been very interesting as I continue to learn about interactivity.
In my initial research prior to meeting with my group I was interested in combining this newly understood definition of interaction with something that could be both environmentally advantageous and interesting as a standalone project. At times it was exceptionally frustrating to attempt to come up with something that both served a purpose while also responding to human interaction. As a group, we discussed a few ideas about machines that could transform trash into something else or even a pet for people that live on Mars. However, while these ideas seemed interesting they also felt less interactive in that they do not necessarily respond or act to our initial actions in compelling or new ways.
Ultimately, the idea that my group chose to prototype and present is Smart Floors, an interactive and multifunctional device that could be used both in peopleâs homes and in businesses. This idea came from a collaborative group discussion that took its roots in the understanding that interaction from a device can present itself in helpful solutions to a problem we may be facing. I considered that I frequently have the problem that my kitten escapes the enclosure I make for her and I would so appreciate if there were a fix that went above and beyond an ordinary baby gate. Smart Floors would make it possible to not only keep her safe and where she is supposed to be, but also provide an interactive and entertaining solution. We then talked about how interactive floors could be beneficial in keeping people from stealing things, and how fun it would be if there was a device that could do more than simply make loud noises when a theft passes through. This incorporates the ideas of interactivity I have previously explained because the device itself senses when someone is stepping on it, and in return creates an illusion of a different setting.