My definition:
After a few lectures, I completely changed my initial definition of interaction. Before I enrolled in Interaction Lab, I used to think that interaction is just communicating or involving directly with another person or object. However, I now define interaction as not only one person/object acting on another person/object but both person/object acting on each other. Interaction should be an exchanging relationship, and it should not be defined as just a one-way street.
The project that aligned with my definition:
I drew much inspiration from this anti-drawing machine project — this machine aligned with my new expectations interaction for many reasons. First, although the name itself might suggest it is counterproductive, it provided the participants with a refreshing experience. The machine makes “Arduino, A4988 stepper motor drivers, and custom enclosure” to challenge the fundamental way that humans interact with robots. Human beings often collaborate with robots, machines and rely on precision, accuracy to create a result. However, the creators of the Anti-Drawing Machine decided to manipulate the machine by disrupting the participants drawing process. They describe the machine as “a robot that can be whimsical and imperfectly characteristic.”
By using motion sensors, the machine intervenes whenever the participants begin to draw. Though it might be frustrating for the illustrators at the beginning of the experiment, they realize the device follows no logic and is merely trying to have fun. At the end of the process, every participant receives a unique piece of art that involved two parties acting on each other. The machine and the participants collaborated and allowed one another to have fun. This machine aligned with my new expectations interaction for many reasons.
Anti-Drawing Machine – Whimsical and imperfectly characteristic collaborator
The project that did not align with my definition:
In this article, I found a project that did not align with my definition of interaction. Unlike the machine mentioned above, this machine not only frustrates participants but also provide a one-dimensional experience. According to the creators, this machine is “a collection of experiments where a robot was programmed to perform counterproductive tasks” The machine’s multi-purpose approach and the blog’s vague description confused me, and I proceeded to watch the video. I quickly realized the device did not align with my definition of interaction as I watched the video. The machine did not interact with the participants. Instead, it merely got a reaction out of the participants. The participants were mostly idle and reacted to the machine after the machine acted. I believe this machine does not align with the definition of interaction as the two parties did not act on one another. Instead, the participant acted on the actions of the machine.
The Center for Counter-Productive Robotics – Human-centric approach to automation
Group Project:
Our group created a device called “iMirror” that can redefine human beings skin care routine. iMirror consists of artificial intelligence within the mirror that can scan every user’s face, store data, offer advice about skin care and also advise which products to use. By having a mirror that is capable of speaking to each user and hold a conversation, the two parties feed off of each other and therefore act on one another, creating a partnership. Essentially an iMirror is like every user’s dermatologists, and it can speak to every user while also offering precise advice to users that can revitalize every participant’s skin. As iMirror and it’s users bounce ideas off each other and genuinely interact, I believe iMirror aligns with my definition of interaction.