Preparatory Research & Analysis for Final Project
Instructor: Marcela
The Evolution of My Definition of Interaction
During my group project, I initially defined interaction as “a continuous relationship between two actors that is composed of communication through verbal, physical, and/or mental feedback. Mental feedback is included because if something or someone makes you feel something inside, then there is a relationship there, even if it isn’t a visible relationship.” Throughout the execution of my midterm project, I added to my definition and included how there are different levels and types of interaction, stating how “interaction should incorporate and reside in the experience of emotional feelings. Only if the interaction yields the aspect of “feeling”, then it can be defined as a kind of purposeful interaction, but I also agree that there is a span/level of interaction.” When I attended my first interaction lab class, I wasn’t really sure what how to describe what interaction was, let alone expand on a definition of interaction. I thought interaction was just a simple human-to-human conversation or physical reaction. But as the class went on, I slowly began to develop what I believed could fit into my realm of interaction. Early on, Marcela showed us many interactive projects (Adi Marom’s Short++ robotic shoes, Kaho Abe’s Hit Me! helmet button game, Daniel Rozin’s Wooden Mirror, Pom-pom mirror, etc) that lead to me better understand how interaction was more than just “an interaction”. I began to understand that interaction requires a feedback loop. During the experience of my midterm project, I realized how there were different levels of interaction and different types of interaction. Being able to look at and test other classmates’ projects helped me understand how there was more than one kind of interaction and how some of those projects spoke to me more than others, indicating my personal level of interaction with those projects. After the midterm project, I began to realize how everyone had their own definitions of interaction because the deeper aspects of interactivity are inherently subjective. I may really relate to one project while another person won’t. As the class has advanced, more and more aspects were added to my working definition of interaction.
My Research Process
I really enjoyed browsing through the Creative Applications webpage and seeing what people out in the world were turning their passions into. I stumbled upon one that was quite similar in functionality to Daniel Rozin’s Wooden Mirror. Breaking the Surface was a collaboration by four incredible companies: Scandinavian Design Group, Abida, Intek, and Ctrl+N. This project is a simulation of the ocean from the perspective of being below sea level. Above is a massive contraption composed of 549 acrylic pipes that move up and down dependent on the whereabouts of the person walking below. I thought this was a really cool project because it resonated with people like me who are a bit scared of the ocean, but still desire to experience what it might be like underwater. This project aligns with my definition of interaction because the contraption acknowledges my position, analyzes my position, and moves based on where I am. Seeing that the pipes are moving according to my positioning, this prompts me to want to move around to see how the pipes will continue to move. Once I feel comfortable enough with the contraption, I can begin to think of the pipes in a more abstract way – like wave movements – and imagine myself in a positon under sea level. And because I have a fear of being underneath water, this simulation-like project generates a connection with me that makes me want to continue interacting with the contraption. However, we must also acknowledge that maybe for others, this project wouldn’t resonate as much as it did with me for them because they don’t care about the experience of an ocean as much as I do. Therefore, we must understand that the depth of the interaction really depends on the person.
On the same website, I also encountered an interesting project called Cosmos by a duo named Semiconductor. They created this massive sculpture formed from years of scientific data. While the idea behind the project is really amazing, I personally do not find myself attracted to the sculpture. While I am sure people who understand science better or are in that field of study may feel a stronger connection and pull towards the sculpture, this project did not resonate with me. However, even if the project created a personal connection and prompt the individual to explore more, the sculpture does not have a feedback loop, meaning it does not fall into the realm of my definition of interaction. It doesn’t give anything back to you if you move your hand against the ridges of the surface.
One other project really grabbed my attention: Light Barrier by Kimchi and Chips. This installation creates “phantoms of light in the air by crossing millions of calibrated beams; creating floating graphic objects which animate through space” and to the sound of music. What!? I watched the video of this and it looks like there is literally water being spurted out from little holes, but it is actually projections of light! This project falls into my definition, but in kind of an abstract way. You aren’t really physically interacting with the project directly, but you could intercept the light projections if you wanted. In addition, the music choice that dictates the projection of the lights also require the decisions and actions of you. And since you are choosing the music, it allows you to develop a personal connection to the light projections on top of the initial awe. Therefore, in a way, you are forming a meaningful, continuous relationship with the installation, even if it’s not super obvious.
My Current Working Definition of Interaction
Interaction is a word that embodies a multitude of characteristics. It requires a continuous relationship between two or more actors, composed of communication through either verbal, physical, and/or emotional feedback. This relationship may not be obvious at first, in fact it may even be hidden, but it can be discovered after further analysis. I felt that author Chris Crawford provided a fairly holistic framework for my working definition of interaction. In his book, The Art of Interactive Design, Crawford defines interaction as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak. [And] the quality of the interaction depends on the quality of each of the subtasks (listening, thinking, and speaking).” Building off this definition, we should also take into consideration how the relationship between the actors must echo some sort of feeling of personal connection that drives the relationship to be either held or persuaded further. The strength and meaning of the interaction falls on a wide spectrum that may be unconsciously, but inherently subjective and dependent on each individual’s resonance towards the interaction.