My previous definition of interactivity was “a process of input, processing, and output or listening, thinking, and speaking between either human and human or human and computer.” Through the process of the group project and as well as the midterm, I have noticed an important aspect of interactivity that I failed to notice when I wrote my first definition of interaction. Projects, or anything that qualifies as ‘interactive,’ in my opinion must evoke a strong emotional feeling from the users/participants during the interactive experience. Some especially strong feelings of emotion based on people during the interaction to name a few included surprise, laughter, enjoyment, and curiosity. I would like to build on my previous definition of interactivity that interactivity is not only a process of input, processing, output, thinking, and feedback but simultaneously a process that evokes strong emotional feeling from the participants.
In regards to “The Art of Interactive Design” emotion explains why the same simple act of opening the fridge door is less stimulating than a game where all the user has to do is press a button. Both involves a simple task. However, for example, the speed game that we learned in class drew out competitive emotions from the participants thus it greatly contrasts the feelings of one opening a fridge door and seeing the light turn on.
This difference was clear to me after my midterm project, Schrodinger’s Cat decision maker. Seeing participants’ expressions when they interacted with the decision maker was when it came to me that a big part of interaction was about emotions. Although the project was meant to be a decision maker, some people misunderstood the concept a bit and used it more as a fortune teller which actually turned out to be just as interactive, if not, more interesting. It was amusing to see how excited some people were when they got a desirable answer such as ‘yes’ to their question of whether or not they would do well on their exam. It was equally amusing to see the disappointment on other participants’ face when they received an answer they didn’t want to hear.
Upon doing some research for other interactive projects I discovered SUN by Philip Schütte aligns with what I consider as interactive. SUN is an interactive installation in which the participants can control the movement of the sun against the horizon on a digital screen with a physical bouncy ball. In the video, people who used the ball to control the sun’s movement were extremely intrigued by the installation and would test out the limits of the movement of the sun.
Another project I found was a product that projects out a natural lighting experience indoors. The product is created by Leslie Nooteboom and is called Komorebi which is sunlight filtering through leaves. The artist created Komorebi for the purpose of people who live in places where indoor natural light is scarce, especially in urban areas. This project doesn’t align with my definition of interactivity although the user can program it to change shape and location. Personally I really like this product and its purpose but I feel like it is more of a decorative art.
https://komorebi.studio/product-designer