Preparatory Research and Analysis
A)
Throughout this semester, my definition of interaction has changed massively. From the start of the semester, I interpreted the interaction as two parties bouncing ideas, theories, movements off of each other. Then while executing my midterm project, I understood the interaction as a process that should also create a (1+1>2) effect. However, over the last two weeks, my definition of interaction has changed yet again. Building onto my midterm definition, interaction should still bring something new from the table, but it should also be from collaboration and cooperation. Through the lectures, we learned how to combine Arduino and Processing, and it represents the (1+1>2) effect. Interaction should also involve some creativity; interaction should encourage users and creators to envision a project, idea that is one of a kind. Like the random variable in Processing, we should strive to make every interaction unpredictable but enjoyable.
B)
While researching for our final project, I came across two inspiring projects online.
First, I found a light up leather brace created by Tim Deagan on makezine.com
Tim Deagan laments that while cosplay fashion has found a way to incorporate wearable microcontrollers, daily wear fashion still has not. In his project, he found a way to incorporate Adafruit Gemma and RGB NeoPixels in a leather arm brace. The arm brace had four light-up panels and used touch sensors to trigger each one of them. Tim Deagan’s project aligns with my definition of interaction. Not only does he use creativity by trying to break fashion boundaries, but he also uses rechargeable batteries inside his arm brace to help make charging easier. Tim Deagan successfully combines technology and daily wear and creates a (1+1>2） effect; therefore, his project lines up with my definition of interaction.
The second project I found online was a LED Nixie Display article written by Florian Schaffer.
Florian Schaffer cites how the original creator Connor Nishijima uses Arduino powered on 5V to drive a numeric display of multicolor LED lights. Schaffer attempts to teach his readers how to assemble your own LED light display quickly. Although Connor Nishijima does join a beautiful project, the project does not align with my definition of interaction. This LED light display allows users to change the digits illuminated and does incorporate creativity by laser cutting their numeral plates but does not create a (1+1>2) effect. Users get exactly what they want out of this project and nothing more. Therefore, Connor Nishijima’s project does not match my interpretation of interaction.
D)
The standard definition of interaction is a reciprocal action or influence which means both parties are expected to contribute collaboratively. However, after reading online articles, I realize interaction should consist of a sense of unpredictability.
While reading Golan Levin and collaborators’ article “Computer Vision for Artists and Designers: Pedagogic Tools and Techniques for Novice Programmers,” they try to redefine what human beings’ idea of computer vision technologies. They admit people feel that signal processing and artificial intelligence are limited to military and law-enforcement purposes but still try to break this boundary. These experts have employed multiple interactive media artists to help front their operation. They want people to understand computer vision should not be limiting but instead empowering, and they want to spread computer vision around the world and apply it around every field. After reading this article, it forced to polish my idea around interaction. I realized interaction should not be within the box, and it should promote people to think outside the box. After reading Judith Shulevitz’s article “Alexa, Should We Trust You?” on The Atlantic, I realize how powerful interaction can be. Judith Shulevitz discusses how smart speakers and their creators have been able to break conventional boundaries and use interaction to help elevate their importance. Amazon and Google have been pushing their versions of smart speakers to the world in a vigorous fashion over the last two years. While their marketing plan works, they also used computer programming and artificial intelligence to allow users to interact with the speakers truly. By using a smooth voice and an intelligent computer system, customers slowly build a relationship with their smart speaker by asking more questions over time. Google and Amazon did what Golan Levin and collaborators had hoped to do. They used computer vision to impact our globe and our living conditions truly. My idea of interaction has changed thanks to these two articles. I present my final definition of interaction as a process that includes two parties who bounce ideas off each other while using creativity to create a (1+1>2) effect. Golan Levin and Judith Shulevitz are pioneers of the computer vision movement, but Google and Amazon are the trailblazers who experimented with using AI technology to affect our everyday lives indeed. We should all be amazed and inspired by how smart speakers can interact with us, answer our questions, and almost act as another vital family member when it is nothing more than a plastic cylinder. Interaction still requires two parties, in this case, a smart speaker and a user, but it should not just be a collaboration, it should be a relationship that people will yearn for in the future.
http://www.flong.com/texts/essays/essay_cvad/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/alexa-how-will-you-change-us/570844/