My initial definition of interaction from the group project was defined as the engagement between at least two actors who produce variable outputs that are interdependent on each other’s inputs. I feel that my current understanding of interaction falls along the same lines, but it can be reworded to be more inclusive of more projects. My midterm project was a game that involved competitively shaking acceleration sensors in order to put all the LED lights out the fastest. This represents interaction to me because users had an effect on the game’s LED indicators, which in turn had an effect on how users continued to shake the sensors. However, the use of the word “interdependent” in my definition may be too strict to encompass projects like these. While the game depended on the user to change the state of the LEDs, the user didn’t depend on the game to create shaking movements. They each had an effect on the other, but it wasn’t truly interdependency.
Soonho Kwon, Harsh Kedia and Akshat Prakash’s Anti Drawing Machine is a perfect example of interaction. The machine disrupts or acts as a collaborator as is made on a normal piece of paper based on how the user draws. It utilizes Arduino and A4988 stepper motor drivers to change the rotation and position of the paper serendipitously to create whimsical and imperfect drawings. Inconspicuous sensors detect where the drawer is drawing, and moves the paper accordingly in unpredictable ways. This falls under interaction because the machine depends on the user to make movements, while the user must change the way they draw in order to accomodate for how the machine moves the paper. They are engaging each other to make different movements.
Skin Drag is a project that does not align with my definition of interaction. SkinDrag is a watch that drags a physical tactor across the skin beneath the watch in order to communicate notifications physically. This was made to create a stronger stimulus than normal phone vibrations, since the tactor movements vary depending on the type of notification received. I don’t see this as interaction because the watch and the wearer do not each have an effect on each other. The watch affects the wearer by creating a physical stimulus, but the wearer has no effect on the watch. Instead, the watch gathers data from an external source to create its movements. Therefore, there is no direct mutual interaction between the wearer and the watch.
I now define interaction as a breakable cycle in which two or more actors’ outputs building off of and enacting direct causation onto each other. One actor’s output is directly a unique result of other’s output. I include “unique” to describe these outputs in reference to Chris Crawford’s description of the refrigerator door opening and closing to turn on the light inside. I do not see this as interaction, because the light turns on regardless of how the door is opened. Regardless of speed or force, the light will turn on if the door is opened. For this to count as interaction, the light would have to turn on in varied ways, for example, turning different colors or exerting different brightnesses depending on how someone opens the door, since these are unique responses to the action that vary each time. I also describe it as a breakable cycle because these outputs are continually mutually changing in response to each other until one actor does not produce an output anymore. With one output stopped, the other output will also stop in response to this deficit of input until the cycle is begun again.
Works Cited:
Crawford, Chris. The Art of Interactive Design: a Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software. No Starch Press, 2003, pp. 3-6.