Chronus exhibition, like most other exhibitions of technology-based art work, creates a much more involving environment for visitors with the art works. Upon first glance, the movement in the work itself even without interaction already arouse people’s attention and interest (might be because human beings are also carnivores so moving things naturally catches our mind as evolutionary theories explained). The sound and media shown combined with moving components and the installation as a whole stimulates visitors’ senses so it creates a tense sensory experience, more than just having a sight of an installation. And this kind of experience stimulates people to figure out the behind ideologies and develop their own understanding.
This is an interactive project which I really liked. At first when I saw this project the speaker of my laptop is accidentally not working so I thought this is a boring idea only with tumble shapes and the interaction is too simple and not interesting enough. But when I got my sound effects back, the whole interaction process becomes attracting and interesting since the speed and pattern how shapes tumble echoes the tempo of notes being played when the user rotates the screen plate. Users can create their own music piece and enjoy their production with their eyes, ears and limbs (which they need to use to create the music).
The butterfly effect is also a successful useful interactive project. While what the designers is to provide people a fun and new experience with their blowing. For me it visualizes the ability of of a person’s vital capacity with much more interesting and pleasant experience. I will definitely want to have this aesthetic and lively interactive device at my vital capacity test compared with the cold machine showing numbers I don’t really understand.
The two interactive digital installation shown in the video shows a contrast itself while the first has more children attracted and interact with it while the other has less because it shows little response to what people on it does. The users’ intention to interact with is not valued in the latter one and people thus lost interest in it. The little girl who happily interacted with fishes tried to run and see difference in the latter work too but saw no difference.
I used to define interaction as a mutual reaction in which at least one party gets personal and unique experience. By this definition, I mean that the interactive experience for user (if it is with a device) should be involving and meaningful. An interactive experience will be successful only if it is user-centered, which means it needs to consider the user’s point of view, making it clear for them to understand how to interact while at the same time ensuring the interaction is interesting and meaningful for them. Like what is suggested by the idea of “Norman Door”, a door is only successfully designed when a person can almost subconsciously realize whether to push or to pull instead of having to try or read the sign. The most common feedback we receive in our user test feedback for the midterm project is that it is hard to realize how to interact and the inability to form interaction or the not-so-good experience ruins the interaction. So knowing who will be the user and what they really need is necessary. Like Norman says, “the work starts with understanding people’s needs and capabilities. The goal is to devise solutions for those needs, making sure that the end results are understandable, affordable, and, most of all, effective”. The latter work in the mall certainly fails in satisfying people’s needs as the interaction is not comprehensive and not effective. Meanwhile the butterfly effect is very clear and if it does apply to be used for vital capacity test it fits social needs and improves the current experience. At least from my own point of view, it will be a great people-centered design with this use.
- Norman, Don. “People-Centered (Not Tech-Driven) Design*.” Jnd.org, Jnd.org, 26 July 2019, jnd.org/people-centered-not-tech-driven-design/.