In the blog post of my group project, I defined the “interaction” as “a complicated and creative procedure of “input-process-output” between two actors”. After weeks of learning as well as the engagement of various activities in this class, The essence of my definition has been consistent. However, the approach I chose to define “interaction” at the beginning of this course emphasized on the objectively behavioral perspective. Interaction is defined as a procedure conducted between two actors. This definition is generally proper but lacks the diversity of dimensions. Thus, in this post, I would add a new subjective and motivational dimension to the definition that qualified interaction should appeal to the relevant actors’ motivations to engage in the “mutual communication” processes illustrated in my initial definition.
This new dimension about the the “attractiveness” of the interaction was firstly inspired by my midterm project experience. At the beginning of the process of constructing and polishing my midterm project with my partner, we discussed which kind of interaction format we would like to use to make our interaction more appealing. Eventually, we decided to generate a game since it is a representative form of interaction in the contemporary world, which includes not only the essential “mutual communication” part but also the characteristic of entertaining by its definition. This consideration originates from our belief that a “qualified interactive project” must be attractive to their target audience simply with their interaction itself. Game is designed to initially be an entertainment for people to relax. According to some psychological findings, people are internally motivated to seek entertaining and relaxing stuffs to fulfill their mental desire. Thus, a good design of games will be motivational to the users. This has been proved in the in-class presentation session of the midterm projects. In that session, almost every project matches with my initial definition of interaction with the relatively complicated procedure of “input-process-output” and some of them are creative. However, when compared with those highly-praised interactive projects or the interpersonal interactions, our project along with others’ seemed incomplete in a way that they lacked the characteristics to motivate others to be involved in the interactions over and over again. In the presentation of called “Interactive art” by Zach Lieberman, he mentioned the “open mouth” phenomenon which indicates that a good interactive project should be surprising and appealing to the users.
The first interactive project that I think aligns with my new version of definition of interaction is the popular “responding trash bins” in some Disney amusement parks around the globe. Those trash bins are not placed in a fixed location as they usually do, instead they are designed with the appearance of robot and moving around the park. During the process, they will continuously remind the tourists that they should leave their trash into the bins with sound. Moreover, the tourists can chat with the trash bins to obtain some knowledge with regard to trash classifications or simply just for fun. The different features of the trash can also lead to different corresponding reactions. The interaction not only contains complicated process of mutual communications between the trash bins and tourists, but also surprises the tourists with their innovative experience of trash bins usage. Many people are attractive by these trash bins and enjoy their interactions while at the same time gain the motivations to put their trashes into the bins. To sum up, this interactive project motivates the target audience to communicate with them and eventually achieve their goals of operating this interaction process.
The second interactive project I examined is the scalable shoes shown in the introduction class of this course. The shoes can be controlled by the remote controllers. It can move up and down based on your demands and the current situations. This interactive project has the essential and relatively complicated procedure of “input-processing-output”. The commands you send with the controllers are the input, the identification and management of information and commands within the microcomputers of the shoes are the processing, and the relevant movements are the output. Based on my initial definition, this interactive project can be considered as a good one. However, it lacks the characteristics of stimulating the users motivations to use it. This interaction in my opinion is unnecessary and even on several occasions embarrassing in terms of the uniqueness of its usage. The surprise and innovation of this interactive project are obvious but this innovation is not able to be transformed into the motivational incentives of the users. In conclusion, this project should not be seen as a good one since it doesn’t align with my evolved definition of interaction.